Re: [Tagging] Meaning of cycleway=no

2017-07-20 Thread Wiktor Niesiobedzki 
2017-07-19 10:37 GMT+02:00 Adam Snape :
> I agree with Wiktor that we shoud use the access tag bicycle=no when
> cycling' is prohibited.
> I agree with Volker that the logical meaning of cycleway=no is that there
> are no cycle tracks or lanes along a section of highway. This might be
> useful information in a similar way to sidewalk=no, not useless like
> building=no  landuse=no.
>

How does tagging cycleway=no should affect routing or rendering? My
guess it's indistinguishable from having no cycleway tag at all.If
this is used only as a communication between mappers, why then not use
note= tag?

Cheers,

Wiktor

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of cycleway=no

2017-07-20 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Wiktor Niesiobedzki  wrote:
>
> Can anybody point me to explanation of this tag value? Should it's use
> be discouraged by validators / presets? (at least combinations as
> highway=cycleway + cycleway=no)
>

highway=cycleway + cycleway=no is definitely a nonstarter.

cycleway=no means that there is no bicycle facility.  highway=cycleway
means that it's built only for, or primarily for, cycling.  In the US, this
would effectively be the same as a multiuse path, but with marked lanes
and/or signage, and may include a provision for pedestrians such as
sidewalks, like this one in Tulsa
 (location
).
A common arrangement would be to be open to pedestrian traffic, but provide
no facility for walking, such as this one in Jenks, Oklahoma
 (location
).
More elaborate arrangements would be like this one in Helmrich Park
 (location
),
where the sidewalk is fully separated (visible on left) from the sidewalk
(foreground).  The former only allows pedestrians, the latter allows
cyclists and skaters.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Temporary" road with once-per-half-hour access.

2017-07-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2017-07-18 23:18 GMT+02:00 Tijmen Stam :

> On 18-07-17 22:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>> At the start towards Abriès, an "access:forward = no" +
>>> "access:forward:conditional = yes @ (22:00-22:07, 22:30-22:37, ... )" tag
>>> over a short section, and mutatis mutandis at the other end?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would do it similarly, but put less emphasis on the traffic lights,
>> something like
>> vehicle=no
>> vehicle:conditional = yes @ (22:00-06:00)
>>
>
> How do you mean "less emphasis on the traffic lights"?



Sorry, I had thought it was every 7 minutes, but as it is every half an
hour, being more explicit might indeed make sense.



>
>
> (or are the restrictions for pedestrians as well?)
>>
>
> I don't know, but the emergency route isn't the most logical route for
> pedestrians nor cyclists.
>


it doesn't matter, if pedestrians can go there anytime, you shouldn't
exclude them.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] admin_level with office=government

2017-07-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 18. Jul 2017, at 17:31, Nelson A. de Oliveira  wrote:
> 
> For me it doesn't look right to appropriate an already well defined
> tag (admin_level) to say that a government office is from a federal
> instance/court, for example.


I don't see a problem to add admin_level on government offices.

If you are looking for boundaries you will have to look for a combination of 
boundary=administrative with a proper admin level (while in the past looking 
only on the admin level tag was probably sufficient).

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] admin_level with office=government

2017-07-20 Thread Nelson A. de Oliveira 
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> I don't see a problem to add admin_level on government offices.
>
> If you are looking for boundaries you will have to look for a combination of 
> boundary=administrative with a proper admin level (while in the past looking 
> only on the admin level tag was probably sufficient).

But then it opens precedence to use admin_level on any object that has
some kind of government administration.

For example, schools, hospitals, parks, etc.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] admin_level with office=government

2017-07-20 Thread Nelson A. de Oliveira 
Complementing, why not just use ownership
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ownership, operator
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator or something else,
instead using a tag created for borders?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging