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. * highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at present. * highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe blue long dash interspersed with red short dash) * highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe red long dash interspersed with blue short dash) * With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in parallel with red - the right way round if possible. I think that would solve the issue here, and prevent a lot of anonymous notes.
Anyone know off hand where/how to propose this? Or even willing to help on coding up a demo? --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 12:24 PM, Thomas Jarvis wrote: > I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural > shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as > highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, > bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to > it). > 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), the path is designed for > both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore > not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though > so that shouldn't be an issue for routers). > His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not > configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as > highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, > as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a well used cycle route. Both > of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to > reflect this. > > 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 differently. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759 > > > Thank you, > -- > *_T_*homas *_J_* > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
