Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
... I've refrained so far from getting into this burgeoning discussion thread ... just 2 humble pleas though: 1. It is different in different countries. In England there are cycleways ... typically part of long-distance non-urban routes that have been created either primarily for cyclists or as shared routes for non-motorised users ... that don't have cycleway signs. But they are ALL available to pedestrians (and often equestrians) as well. 2. OSM is - I hope - not just a cycle project. Some of us walk from time to time (as well as cycle and drive). In England there are already many ways tagged as 'cycleways' - apart from dedicated cycle tracks alongside motor roads every one of these that I have seen so far is available equally to cyclists. pedestrians and (usually) equestrians. If we suddenly redefine 'cycleway' as being "exclusively" for cyclists there will be a s**tload of re-tagging to do! _ From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: 06 January 2010 02:32 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways 2010/1/6 Steve Bennett On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway. I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable than average. Much more suitable than average, if you like. Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have to think about how to express it more clearly. I'm not trying to turn OSM into a bike project - I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of cycleway that people can agree on and that is useful. in Germany we have a very simple rule: if there is one of the signs (examples here): http://www.hamburg.de/image/293720/verkehrszeichen-fahrradweg-bildqu.jpg http://www.wilfo.com/blog/archives/fahrrad_weg.jpg http://www.auto-und-verkehr.de/uploads/RTEmagicC_zeichen240_fahrradweg.gif.gif it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple and easy to apply. Alternatively you can use path and additional tags (see wiki). I don't get your problem. Btw: I do go by bike, almost everytime I go somewhere, and OSM is already a kind of bike project in some point of view, but as a cyclist it is still important to me if a way is a dedicated cycleway (different rules apply, e.g. you generally legally _have_ to take it by bike if you go where it goes, pedestrians can't take it), or not. cheers, Martin No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.126/2601 - Release Date: 01/05/10 07:35:00 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: > The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport: > anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not vice > versa. > except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
2010/1/6, Roy Wallace : > > highway=path precisely fits your definition (in my mind) of "narrowway". > > So, use highway=path + access tags. +1 highway=path is the long-existing and equally long misunderstood solution to this osm problem. I don't get why some people hate it so much (or twist it to mean 'totally narrow mountain hiking path with bad surface and orcs waiting alongside to eat you'). ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Liz wrote: > except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway > and the poor Austrians, Swiss, Turkish and the poor Belarus, Belgians, Brazilians, French, Dutch if it is not also designated for pedestrians or an alternative for pedestrians exists. Please stop considering OSM as a UK, Germany and more recently US and Australia centric project even if the activity of this list might give this impression. Look this (old) wiki page about this (old) topic: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, >> foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, >> bicycle=designated. >> No, a highway=footway, bicycle=designated is not the same as highway=cycleway, foot=designated. If you just try to understand the wiki definitions and not over-interpret them, you see that cycleway is mainly/exclusively for bicycles where pedestrians might be allowed or tolerated (depending of the country) and a footway is mainly/exclusively for pedestrians where bicycles might be allowed or tolerated. These definitions feet well for countries where the "mainly/exclusively" role is easy to determin which seems to be the case in Europe. If it is not possible in Australia (or US), then create you Australian:Map Features page like the 33 other countries and write you own refinement of the tag definitions. > Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Should we be deprecating one or the other, or doing > mass updates or something? They can be replaced by a path + *=designated if you like but deprecating the shorthands was massively rejected at the "path" key creation. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Pieren wrote: > and the poor Austrians, Swiss, Turkish > and the poor Belarus, Belgians, Brazilians, French, Dutch if it is not > also designated for pedestrians or an alternative for pedestrians > exists. > > Please stop considering OSM as a UK, Germany and more recently US and > Australia centric project even if the activity of this list might give > this impression. > > I think "Germany" in this case has been used as a convenient placeholder for "countries with cycleways like they have in Germany". But your point is well made, and I apologise, as one of the guilty parties. > Look this (old) wiki page about this (old) topic: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions > > Is it "old" as in, obsolete? Should we make an Australian entry, or is it no longer relevant? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Pieren wrote: > > No, a highway=footway, bicycle=designated is not the same as > highway=cycleway, foot=designated. If you just try to understand the > wiki definitions and not over-interpret them, you see that cycleway is > mainly/exclusively for bicycles where pedestrians might be allowed or > tolerated (depending of the country) and a footway is > mainly/exclusively for pedestrians where bicycles might be allowed or > tolerated. > These definitions feet well for countries where the > "mainly/exclusively" role is easy to determin which seems to be the > case in Europe. If it is not possible in Australia (or US), then > create you Australian:Map Features page like the 33 other countries > and write you own refinement of the tag definitions. > > Ok, so having created an entry for Australia ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia), now does the above rule apply? That is, in Australia, according to the rules I've written, is "highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated" equivalent to "highway=cycleway"? I'll start a separate thread on the AU list where we can debate the access restrictions. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Steve Bennett > Is it "old" as in, obsolete? Should we make an Australian entry, or is it no > longer relevant? > It is an old page because designation and default access is an old topic and there is no "black and white" answer. In some countries, when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed for pedestrians and contributors do not want to be forced to add a foot=no because in some other countries it is "obviously" allowed. It's like asking the whole world to add a bicycle=no with highway=motorway because it is allowed in some US motorways. It would be very helpful to see an Australian entry in this page, of course. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pieren wrote: > > It is an old page because designation and default access is an old > topic and there is no "black and white" answer. In some countries, > when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed for pedestrians > and contributors do not want to be forced to add a foot=no because in > some other countries it is "obviously" allowed. It's like asking the > whole world to add a bicycle=no with highway=motorway because it is > allowed in some US motorways. > But isn't the point of the table to allow an Australian to tag "highway=cycleway" and to mean something different from when a German does it? And the point is that the makers of renderers and routers can use this table? Presumably we should provide it in XML format or something to make this easier. Or is this the dream, but it's actually not used? What am I missing? > It would be very helpful to see an Australian entry in this page, of > course. > > Done. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
2010/1/6 Steve Bennett : > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pieren wrote: >> >> It is an old page because designation and default access is an old >> topic and there is no "black and white" answer. In some countries, >> when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed for pedestrians >> and contributors do not want to be forced to add a foot=no because in >> some other countries it is "obviously" allowed. It's like asking the >> whole world to add a bicycle=no with highway=motorway because it is >> allowed in some US motorways. > > But isn't the point of the table to allow an Australian to tag > "highway=cycleway" and to mean something different from when a German does > it? And the point is that the makers of renderers and routers can use this > table? Presumably we should provide it in XML format or something to make > this easier. > > Or is this the dream, but it's actually not used? What am I missing? > > >> >> It would be very helpful to see an Australian entry in this page, of >> course. >> Jesus, what this dead horse has done to you? Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in real life lot of people will use footpaths for cycling, and some footpaths would be suitible for cycling, but will lack official marking. Well, bad luck. We can't have everything as in real life on OSM. We have to draw a line somewhere. In fact, if I see a footpath who looks really supictious as usable for cycling too, I will note this with note=* tag and maybe later I will check it out for sure. If not, someone else propably will do. Cheers, Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
Hi! Am 06.01.2010 13:00, schrieb Steve Bennett: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Pieren Ok, so having created an entry for Australia > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia), > now does the above rule apply? That is, in Australia, according to the > rules I've written, is "highway=path, bicycle=designated, > foot=designated" equivalent to "highway=cycleway"? No, with 2xdesignated the way is equally dedicated to foot+bike. With cycleway it is mainly for bike with foot tolerated, so cycleway is the equivalent of bike=designated, foot=yes. But anyhow, it seems the monthly foot/bike/path discussion is on. So I'd invite you to check the point of views and discussions of previous instances and maybe contribute some to the summary page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path bye Nop ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Hi! Am 06.01.2010 07:15, schrieb Steve Bennett: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport: > anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not > vice versa. > > Anyway, with the realisation that cycleway is actually treated the same > as highway=path,bicycle=designated (I thought this was just a proposal, > I didn't realise it actually worked), everything gets simpler. No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it differently. Their argumentation is like this: - "designated" means there is a sign - in my country, when there is a sign, the way is exclusive for cycles - cycleway means pedestrains are allowed, but if there is a sign, they are not, so it cannot be the same bye Nop ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, > >> foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, > >> bicycle=designated. > >> > > No, a highway=footway, bicycle=designated is not the same as > highway=cycleway, foot=designated. If you just try to understand the > wiki definitions and not over-interpret them, you see that cycleway is > mainly/exclusively for bicycles where pedestrians might be allowed or > tolerated (depending of the country) and a footway is > mainly/exclusively for pedestrians where bicycles might be allowed or > tolerated. > Seems to me the wiki is inconsistent about how to treat http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png then. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples says that such "A path designated for pedestrians and cyclists equally." can be tagged as highway=cycleway, foot=designated OR highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated. I assume, for the sake of logical consistency, that highway=footway, bicycle=designated would also be allowed. > These definitions feet well for countries where the > "mainly/exclusively" role is easy to determin which seems to be the > case in Europe. > Those signs I showed you are European signs, right? Is the wiki wrong? On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Should we be deprecating one or the other, or doing > mass updates or something? > I don't think it's ugly at all. I think it finally makes sense. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
Anthony wrote:
> highway=cycleway means highway=path, bicycle=designated.
>
> bicycle=designated means bicycles are explicitly allowed (generally, by
> signage)
>
> highway=footway means highway=path, foot=designated
For all practical purposes, yes.
But to be exact, the meanings were defined only in the other direction:
a path with bicycle=designated can be considered equal to a cycleway
a path with foot=designated can be considered equal to a highway=footway
Since the older tags cycleway and footway were UK based, they (presumably)
often had corresponding signs and knew well enough their surroundings
to choose between the two when there wasn't any sign present.
highway=cycleway tells nothing more than "it is signposted as a way for
cycling, or it is similar in construction to such ways nearby _and_
cycling is legal." Nothing of "bicycles are more welcome than
pedestrians".
highway=footway tells nothing more than "I may and can(*) walk there,
either it's signposted so or otherwise legal".
For drawing the map these were and are sufficient, given the knowledge
of default access restrictions and the guideline to "tag the highest
traffic category allowed, since if you can cycle on it, you can walk on
it, too" - except for the "bicycles only" ways.
*) Say, outside the city, I'm allowed to walk across the bogs (and it's
even open and level ground) but that doesn't make them a footway +
area=yes. Unsigned ways are either constructed for traffic, or wear
induced, which seems easy to spot and a suitable criteria when there's
no signage.
Just as a highway=path without any other tags tell nothing more than
"way where motor vehicles aren't allowed" but leaves everything else
to additional tags. With any =designated, a path turns into a something
descriptive ("Ah, it's for snowmobiles/bicycles").
When refining the definitions, I find that, given similar construction/
physical characteristics, a signposted shared use path (bikes and pedestrians
"must use") is not significantly different from a light traffic way without any
signs or with a "no motor vehicles" sign (both implying, at least in some
countries, "bikes and pedestrians allowed"), to warrant being a distinct
highway type.
All of them benefit from additional tags, most notably wheelchair=no,
surface=paved/unpaved/grass/mud ...
The rendering of original highway=cycleway should have been altered
before introducing highway=path, altered in a way to distinguish those
tagged additionally with a foot=no from all the others. But I guess no
one proposed that, nor did anyone mention that in the talk list, trac,
or in the wiki.
But all the points have been somewhat summarised here already:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
--
Alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
John Smith writes: > As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it > the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then > extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin > polygons + info from the lookup table Does osm2pgsql have that capability already? Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On 01/06/2010 07:10 AM, Nop wrote: > > No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path > proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it > differently. Their argumentation is like this: > - "designated" means there is a sign > - in my country, when there is a sign, the way is exclusive for cycles > - cycleway means pedestrains are allowed, but if there is a sign, they > are not, so it cannot be the same So they should use access=no in addition to bicycle=designated. Seems simple enough to me. This is also why access=official was created, even though it’s redundant. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it > the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then > extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin > polygons + info from the lookup table What is the advantage in separating the shields from their associated features in the DB? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
"Mike N." writes: >> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it >> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then >> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin >> polygons + info from the lookup table > > What is the advantage in separating the shields from their associated > features in the DB? The mapper does not need to worry about them if the renderers just do the right thing. The shields are not really a property of the highway. Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, >> foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, >> bicycle=designated. > > Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Should we be deprecating one or the other, or doing > mass updates or something? I think so, but I don't think it's worth pursuing right now, as many are still attached to the redundant cycleway/footway tags. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > The biggest problem I can see at the moment is I really don't want to tag > anything "bicycle=designated" unless I'm certain it really *is* designated > that way (which I can't do from aerial photography), but I *do* want to tag > it "highway=cycleway" without such certainty. Or maybe I just tag it > "fixme=verify designation". I came across this problem too. Eventually I decided to just use highway=path, as that is all that can be confidently concluded from aerial photography. (leave the details for a later ground survey...) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
2010/1/7 Matthias Julius : > John Smith writes: > >> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it >> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then >> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin >> polygons + info from the lookup table > > Does osm2pgsql have that capability already? No, I'm trying to code up a proof of concept at present to parse the wiki page and then after osm2pgsql runs, find any roads not tagged with a shield and then add the shield information by using the road information + polygon information. So far I have been able to parse the wiki page, but I'm still working on improving the lookup table the information is stored in so that things happen as quickly as possible. It probably doesn't help that I have no idea how to deal with reverse regular expression lookups etc. :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Love Hotel
Hi there,
5 months ago I started scratching a new tag amenity=love_hotel [1].
Since there was no recent activity, I think it's time to call your
attention one more time to it and start voting. What do you think of
it? The page explains itself (I think), but a love_hotel ("motel" in
Brazil, different from motel elsewhere) is a hotel where people go
exclusively to make love. The decorations, TV channels and so on are
very different from a regular hotel, hence a new tag (and not specific
sub-tags).
1: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Love_Hotel
Cheers,
Arlindo "Nighto" Pereira
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
John Smith writes: > 2010/1/7 Matthias Julius : >> John Smith writes: >> >>> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it >>> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then >>> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin >>> polygons + info from the lookup table >> >> Does osm2pgsql have that capability already? > > No, I'm trying to code up a proof of concept at present to parse the > wiki page and then after osm2pgsql runs, find any roads not tagged > with a shield and then add the shield information by using the road > information + polygon information. > > So far I have been able to parse the wiki page, but I'm still working > on improving the lookup table the information is stored in so that > things happen as quickly as possible. You want to parse the wiki page from within osm2pgsql? I am not so sure that's a good idea. I think it should read that information from a local file (which can be updated from the wiki by an independent tool). Also, it would be nice if the mechanism is general enough that it can be used elsewhere where the appearance of a way or node should depend on an area it intersects or is within, like roads under buildings. Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
2010/1/7 Matthias Julius : > You want to parse the wiki page from within osm2pgsql? I am not so sure > that's a good idea. I think it should read that information from a > local file (which can be updated from the wiki by an independent tool). For all it matters, the raw wiki page could be cached locally and parsed, however that isn't really isn't the issue, the issue is turning the information on the wiki page (somehow) into a lookup table to be used to assign shield symbols... > Also, it would be nice if the mechanism is general enough that it can be > used elsewhere where the appearance of a way or node should depend on an > area it intersects or is within, like roads under buildings. Well relations aren't ways, the ways go through/under/ buildings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Love Hotel
2010/1/7 Arlindo Pereira > > 1: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Love_Hotel > > I like your request and I think this is useful in Brazil. Did you mean you wanted to start voting? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Love Hotel
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I think this is useful in Brazil. I have heard of such in Tokyo as well. Niagara Falls NY USA has motels that specialize in 'honeymoon specials' which are rather similar but cater to longer stays and actually presume as opposed to pretend their clientèle are married. Motels in many commercial highway areas in the US have a reputation as "No-Tell Motels" and are commonly used for assignations, as well as by low budget commercial travelers, but are not quite so specially equipped as the Brazilian, Tokyo, or Niagara Falls establishments [based on reading their advertising at highway speed, haven't inspected]. -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > > Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's > allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in > Heh, that makes about three people with very simple "takes" on the matter - and they're all contradictory. The matter is "simple" to lots of people - with different understandings each time. Ultimately, it comes down to this: there is a clear difference between a dirt path that bikes are allowed on, and a smooth, wide, obstacle free path of compacted limestone that happens not to be signed with any bike signs. That difference is worth encoding, and that's why "highway=footway bicycle=yes" is not satisfactory to me at the moment, and why I'll continue to (ab)use "highway=cycleway". My apologies for the dead horse though, I'm happy to drop this at the moment, for want of anything more useful to add to the conversation. Roy: >I came across this problem too. Eventually I decided to just use >highway=path, as that is all that can be confidently concluded from >aerial photography. (leave the details for a later ground survey...) I do that when it's unpaved, and I really have no idea if bikes are even allowed or not. One I did today: http://osm.org/go/uGtPRKFLD- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Nop wrote: > With cycleway it is mainly for bike with foot tolerated, so cycleway is > the equivalent of bike=designated, foot=yes. > Ok. To be absolutely clear: in Australia "mainly for bike with foot tolerated" does not exist. Also, "exclusively for bike" practically doesn't exist. There is only: 1) Exclusively for pedestrians, and signed as such. 2) Generally for pedestrians, but you can probably ride a bike on it. 3) Designated for pedestrians and cyclists, with no particular priority. 4) (Rarely) Designated for cyclists exclusively, usually with a pedestrian path nearby. 5) (And a few other cases involving horses and whatnot). How would you encode this with default access restrictions? > > > But anyhow, it seems the monthly foot/bike/path discussion is on. So I'd > invite you to check the point of views and discussions of previous > instances and maybe contribute some to the summary page. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path > > Good idea. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
John Smith writes: > Well relations aren't ways, the ways go through/under/ buildings. Do they? Did I miss something? Last I know is that they are rendered on top of buildings even if they are on a lower layer. Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
2010/1/7 Matthias Julius : > John Smith writes: > >> Well relations aren't ways, the ways go through/under/ buildings. > > Do they? Did I miss something? Last I know is that they are rendered > on top of buildings even if they are on a lower layer. How is that rendering bug related to using relations to group ways? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
