On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 16:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some >> motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them. >> > > & then you get situations like this: > > > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.535651543577&lng=153.53896264714&z=17&pKey=1164980277280563&focus=photo&x=0.3457481526763355&y=0.5159430950498471&zoom=2.6582278481012658 > > then 100m further: > > > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.536232873317&lng=153.53874804183&z=17&pKey=387825812412523&focus=photo&x=0.4645538612648733&y=0.5690565818776447&zoom=1.5949367088607593 > > which is tagged as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115 > > Yes, it works, I guess, but to my mind it looks ridiculous, & also errors > in Osmose etc as an unconnected cycleway! > I would probably not model that way, the onramp should merge much sooner with the motorway and that should be good enough, unless you start mapping paint on the road.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
