+1. I'm also removal. But I can unterstand the idea behind it. However it
should be discussed some more.
Am 1. Januar 2015 22:09:49 MEZ, schrieb 715371 <osmu715...@gmx.de>:
>Hi,
>
>there is a sentence on
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
>
>which says
>
>"It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
>highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
>pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
>direction)."
>
>It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
>short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
>But this is the opposite of what is written on
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
>
>"The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
>effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
>descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
>tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
>highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track. "
>
>I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.
>
>If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
>first citation. What is your opinion on that?
>
>Cheers
>Tobias
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet._______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
