Am 14.12.2013 15:18, schrieb Masi Master: > Yes, it will be included in the new proposal. > PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way: > http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662&point=52.509385%2C13.270111&vehicle=BIKE&locale=nl > > > > Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik Johansson <[email protected]>: > >> I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have >> to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal >> again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this >> tagging is. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee <[email protected]> wrote: >>> @ Martin >>> >>> I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not >>> expect we >>> had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been >>> some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST >>> way >>> has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing >>> is a >>> difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be >>> mapped as >>> a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better >>> routing >>> is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from "bicycle >>> access" as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) ) it is >>> easier to >>> explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with >>> explicit >>> ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that.... it >>> still is >>> difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a >>> try. >>> >>> Cheers >>> PeeWee32 >>> >>> >>> 2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/12/13 Pee Wee <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended. Voting results: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes: 10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal) >>>>> >>>>> No: 11 >>>>> >>>>> Abstain: 3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject >>>>> the current one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast >>>> majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be >>>> tagged, >>>> either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible >>>> btw., if >>>> there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they >>>> existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or >>>> destination on the road, what is not working and has already been >>>> discussed). >>>> >>>> As these are the reasons for opposing this, a "better proposal" very >>>> likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no >>>> solution will be agreed on). >>>>
As I am not voting anymore (I did on few occasions in the past), I am sorry for you guys. There are still many options left. 1. No one can stop you from using the value anyway. 2. create a similar proposal and just leave it as proposal without voting but have some software adapted to show the results. I am really in favour of a tag like this as the current situation is not working and people start to use bad concepts to make it work (Lübeck). Cheers fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
