> But route-finding software needs to know the legal position. Mapping
> something as cycles-only, when in fact it can also be used on foot, will
> break a lot of valid pedestrian routes.
Agreed. I'm not talking about mapping/tagging for use by route-finding
software; I'm talking about how
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:52 PM Martin Wynne wrote:
>
> Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
>
>
I don’t know the legal basis, but according to OSM there are plenty of
cycleways or roads from which pedestrians are banned in London:
On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote:
/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
/
Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295
Quite clear signage - Mapillary -
That's weird.
Save for some tactile paving what's the difference between North & South?
DaveF
On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote:
/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually
banned?
/
Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295
Quite clear
On 10/12/2020 16:28, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
> I think there are enough items that look and act like a cycles-only
way to make it worth having a fourth item in your hierarchy- whatever
the legal position.
But route-finding software needs to know the legal position. Mapping
something as
Just to add by the way, in a country like netherlands "cycleways" are paved
paths dedicated to cycles. You can't walk on there because there are also
sidewalks to walk on. E.g.:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pAL4yr927e4/maxresdefault.jpg
--
10 Dec 2020, 14:08 by tonyo...@gmail.com:
>
> Are there
Didn't know this tagging scheme existed actually. Every single path that allows
both cycling and walking is tagged as "highway=cycleway", "foot=yes" and
"segregated=no" in my area (as well as "footway=sidewalk" sometimes)
--
10 Dec 2020, 12:24 by epicthom...@gmail.com:
> I've reached a
On 10/12/2020 14:13, John Aldridge wrote:
There'd be a whole lot less temptation to tag for the renderer, if the
renderers rendered for the tags a bit better!
Agreed, and while we are on the subject, please can we have *tracks*
rendered on the standard map as a double line? As they are on
I believe you're incorrect.
Cycleways can be shared use with pedestrians, & almost always are in the UK.
Cycleway/footway/path tags are not based on usage figures. Cycleway
allows for two modes of transport, footway allows one. Likewise
'bridleway' allows for three modes -
> ...this distinction doesn't really exist in the UK. The default legal
> position for for any public highway in the UK is that any permission for
> any class of user also includes permission for any class of user prior
> to that in the hierarchy, unless explicitly stated (and signed)
>
On 10/12/2020 15:39, Phillip Barnett wrote:
“ any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and
pedestrians ” Pedestrians? Are you sure about that? Yes, you can walk
along country roads that lack pavements, but try that in a town and
I’m pretty sure you’d get stopped quite quickly.
Following a little research, there was a proposal in the Carto style to do
something like my 5-point suggestion. You can read the details here, and
contribute (or give the 'thumbs up' upvotes to contributions you like:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1321
---
“ any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and pedestrians ”
Pedestrians? Are you sure about that? Yes, you can walk along country roads
that lack pavements, but try that in a town and I’m pretty sure you’d get
stopped quite quickly.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 10 Dec 2020, at 15:21,
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 12:42, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
> highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as at
> present.
> highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at
> present.
> highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed
> On 10 Dec 2020, at 14:13, John Aldridge wrote:
>
> On 12/10/2020 12:41 PM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
>> As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for
>> the tags.
>
> A long standing grump of mine!
And mine. I think the CycleMap render has a lot of issues with
On 10/12/2020 12:41, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering
for the tags. It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org
showed shared-use paths explicitly.
I entirely agree! I think the real problem here is that the standard
On 12/10/2020 12:41 PM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering
for the tags.
A long standing grump of mine!
We see lots of excellent effort put in to designing tagging schemes
which could support a wide variety of applications, but rather
/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
/
Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295
Quite clear signage - Mapillary -
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo
//
When I
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater
number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2)
Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it than
actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.
Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a
As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for the
tags. It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org showed
shared-use paths explicitly. Perhaps as follows:-
* highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as
at present.
*
On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:
(snipped)
I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that
I ask the community here to see what the consensus is.
I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the
sole reason being because it renders
21 matches
Mail list logo
