Graeme - I hope your only using google maps as an example here and not
as your source for mapping. (I mention this here so others don't start
using google to map into OSM)
Andrew/Luke
I too would question the legal implication of the sign. As a cyclist if
traffic was 'light' (as in no traffic) I would continue using the road -
why .. because the traffic lights proitorise vehicle of pedestrians
leading to less delays by using the road rather than the footpath. When
traffic is not 'light' I would prefer the footpath for my safety.
On 20/6/20 8:55 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Sorry, something went wrong there?
Second photo was supposed to be:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5363504,153.5387022,3a,16.3y,166.14h,87.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8k6sIMX0JXgsu_mhFc29Pg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
& the crossing:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5366306,153.5385725,3a,75y,143.74h,54.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJk_cDNVsoMaKLtY5FlWlyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Thanks
Graeme
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 08:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick
<graemefi...@gmail.com <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There are a number of similar signs to these on the M1 in NNSW,
this particular one near Brunswick Heads.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
First:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,15y,154.68h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Second:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Crossing:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
I don't know whether they are legally enforceable to say that all
cyclists "must" cross here, or if it's just a suggestion /
recommendation for your own safety?
I've mapped it as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115 just
as a test, but I don't think it's a perfect solution?
Thanks
Graeme
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 00:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au
<talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Jun 19, 2020, 15:30 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com
<mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via
Talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Can you consider using more specific surface? Like
surface=asphalt?
The problem here is this way is the crossing, so will
likely cover mulitple surface types, usually asphalt on
the road, concrete for the gutter, and paving_stones or
concrete for the pavement. So surface=paved I'd say is
better when it's not clearly any single surface type.
I sometimes split in parts, but I see why it could be an overkill.
Unless it is a continuous surface and I can be bothered I would tag the
actual surface.
But with time constraints I normally just tag surface=paved/unpaved as
those are the two I am interested in.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
