Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > > Even if it is more useful, "places where bikes can go" is not > well-defined. This is the whole point of this thread. If you can come > up with a more specific definition (e.g. based on law, or physical > characteristics, or whatever it is th

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Cartinus wrote: > On Tuesday 08 December 2009 02:13:30 Steve Bennett wrote: > > I'm thinking that published lists of what tags each renderer > > supports would be very handy in a couple of places. > > The stylesheets for the main mapnik and osmarender maps are in s

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Anthony wrote: > > Legal status often *is* verifiable.  It's not always "mapping what's on the > ground", but I think we've got a ways to go before we can get away with only > mapping "what's on the ground".  I agree it's a good ideal, but to follow it > strictly, t

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Anthony wrote: > > Legal status often *is* verifiable.  It's not always "mapping what's on the > ground", but I think we've got a ways to go before we can get away with only > mapping "what's on the ground".  I agree it's a good ideal, but to follow it > strictly, t

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Anthony wrote: > > > > Fortunately, you're not mapping for a router. If there's no verifiable > > data, you shouldn't map anything at all. I guess "unknown" would also be > > acceptable, though. > > I think t

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> >> I strongly disagree. The surveyor must only tag information that is >> verifiable. They should NOT tag >> "I_think_the_router_should_send_bikes_down_here=yes". Notice the >> "I_think"

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Cartinus wrote: > On Tuesday 08 December 2009 01:57:51 Roy Wallace wrote: >> Firstly, you'd have to create a new tag, > > Or the Australian mappers can among themselves decide that the legal status in > Australian traffic law is too vage to map and use other criter

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tuesday 08 December 2009 01:57:51 Roy Wallace wrote: > Firstly, you'd have to create a new tag, Or the Australian mappers can among themselves decide that the legal status in Australian traffic law is too vage to map and use other criteria. I'd suggest to them to use talk-au for that or else

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Tuesday 08 December 2009 02:13:30 Steve Bennett wrote: > I'm thinking that published lists of what tags each renderer > supports would be very handy in a couple of places. The stylesheets for the main mapnik and osmarender maps are in svn. So wat is stopping you from starting this? -- m.v.g

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > I strongly disagree. The surveyor must only tag information that is > verifiable. They should NOT tag > "I_think_the_router_should_send_bikes_down_here=yes". Notice the > "I_think" - that means it isn't verifiable. > No, but "100_bikes_come_t

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > All of these practices help to push OSM taggers towards consistency. > *In the absence of a centralised authority*, Now, is that absence of a centralised authority by accident or by design? I'm obviously proposing just such a thing. Why would

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> >> In Australia, we ARE tagging paths generally with "unknown (or no) >> legal status". Should we *guess* the legal status and use >> footway/cycleway etc., or use highway=path + surface

Re: [Tagging] Time based access restrictions (was: bicycle=no)

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Cartinus wrote: > On Monday 07 December 2009 16:23:06 Stephen Gower wrote: >> A routing engine should use these paths for foot >> traffic (during daylight hours - another problem!) > > I've used "opening_hours=sunrise to sunset". Mostly on tracks and footways in > n

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > In Australia, we ARE tagging paths generally with "unknown (or no) > legal status". Should we *guess* the legal status and use > footway/cycleway etc., or use highway=path + surface + width? > > Or ignore the legal status entirely and map on t

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> >> Hence, if "you can see" a 2m wide concrete path, but no signage and >> have no "non-copyright information on legal status", highway=path + >> surface=concrete + width=2 is exactly wha

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Mike Harris wrote: > >> I think this is an important point. It becomes a problem when >> people try to map the *law*, because legal status is often >> difficult to verify - e.g. you can't see it! > > ... Unless you have access to non-copyright information on legal s

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > Hence, if "you can see" a 2m wide concrete path, but no signage and > have no "non-copyright information on legal status", highway=path + > surface=concrete + width=2 is exactly what you should tag. If it has > "tyre-tracks", feel free to add

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> >> you're suggesting how to tag that a path is "commonly >> used" by bicycles - there isn't a tag for that! > > > I'm only about a year into trying to find a decent answer to this question

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Yeah, but it's really just an enhanced bike lane - a path for bikes that > closely follows the road. To me, the "follows the road" is the crucial > distinction, so it's a kind of cycleway=lane, possibly with another tag. I disagree; cycleway

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > you're suggesting how to tag that a path is "commonly > used" by bicycles - there isn't a tag for that! I'm only about a year into trying to find a decent answer to this question (how to tag informal bike paths). I know there isn't a tag for

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

... Unless you have access to non-copyright information on legal status and this is reasonably available in the public domain in England and Wales ... So I do add legal status BUT using a designation= tag so that it does not get confused with highway=, surface=, tracktype= etc. I would avoid highw

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > > That a path is in common use by bicycles is often pretty easy to establish > (even in places with much less bike traffic than round here), with no real > question that re-survey would see similar tyre-tracks. The problem is not > verifiabilit

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

That a path is in common use by bicycles is often pretty easy to establish (even in places with much less bike traffic than round here), with no real question that re-survey would see similar tyre-tracks. The problem is not verifiability, it's how you record what you can see. Richard On Mon, Dec

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > I care most about simply having a centralised resource that everything else > trickles from. At the moment it seems that the four sources of tag > information (wiki, renderers, editors, actual usage) can all feed off each > other in any arb

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Anthony wrote: > > Fortunately, you're not mapping for a router.  If there's no verifiable > data, you shouldn't map anything at all.  I guess "unknown" would also be > acceptable, though. I think this is an important point. It becomes a problem when people try to

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Richard Mann wrote: > I think the norm is to use British English on OSM. "Kerb" is a specialised > spelling of "curb" used only in this context (according to the Oxford > English Dictionary). Kerb is also US English for this (apparently). There > might be somewhere else that us

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:44:42AM -0500, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Gower earth.li> wrote: > > > Christ Church (College) Meadows: > > http://oxford.cyclestreets.net/location/17860/ "No Bicycles either wheeled > > or ridden" > > For clarification, is that gate stri

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Monday 07 December 2009 07:01:31 Steve Bennett wrote: > Though I still have trouble deciding for a lot of paths around here if it's > really "bicycle=yes" (implying some sort of deliberate intention that bikes > are allowed and a suitability for them) or "bicycle=no" implying a strict > prohibit

[Tagging] Time based access restrictions (was: bicycle=no)

On Monday 07 December 2009 16:23:06 Stephen Gower wrote: > A routing engine should use these paths for foot > traffic (during daylight hours - another problem!) I've used "opening_hours=sunrise to sunset". Mostly on tracks and footways in natural areas that are closed after dark. -- m.v.g., Car

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

+1 Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave F. > Sent: 07 December 2009 13:07 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no > > Steve Bennett wrote:

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Gower wrote: > Christ Church (College) Meadows: > http://oxford.cyclestreets.net/location/17860/ "No Bicycles either wheeled > or ridden" > For clarification, is that gate strictly for motor vehicle traffic? I see it also says "no pedestrians through thi

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Anthony wrote: > Fortunately, you're not mapping for a router. If there's no verifiable > data, you shouldn't map anything at all. I guess "unknown" would also be > acceptable, though. > > Mmm, I guess. My natural tendency is to want to map "something", but to ma

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 08:21:33PM -0500, Anthony wrote: > > What does "no bicycles" mean? Can you show a picture of a sign which > means you aren't allowed to carry a bicycle through this area? It's already been mentioned lower down in the thread, but Oxford University's Parks: http://oxford.cy

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Now that I look closer, it looks like the wiki page has deliberately been > > designed to be easy to machine parse. > > Erg, no. It was just designed for an easier internationalization of > M

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Richard Mann > > > > I'm tending towards cycleway=lane+segregated=kerb (or cycleway=track if > it's > > two-way) > > > > Not sure that cycleway=lane is best here since the cycleway is not > part of the car road. Ther

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > "Permissive" sort of works, though it implies that "permission" has been > given by someone, somehow, and could be revoked. "Unknown" is a more honest > statement of the legal situation, but you have a

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

"Permissive" sort of works, though it implies that "permission" has been given by someone, somehow, and could be revoked. "Unknown" is a more honest statement of the legal situation, but you have a nagging doubt that a router would take that to be the same as "no". Richard On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

The Danish ones tend to be next to the road (and tend to become painted lanes on the approach to junctions). If there's anything more than a shallow kerb between the cycle-path and the road, then I'd agree - it's a track. Richard On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Pieren wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 20

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Now that I look closer, it looks like the wiki page has deliberately been > designed to be easy to machine parse. Erg, no. It was just designed for an easier internationalization of Map Features, using the normal mediawiki templates syntax.

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Richard Mann > > I'm tending towards cycleway=lane+segregated=kerb (or cycleway=track if it's > two-way) > Not sure that cycleway=lane is best here since the cycleway is not part of the car road. There is a real physical separation (the kerb or curb) and even car p

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On 12/7/09, Richard Mann wrote: > The problem is that highway=footway implies (in some people's eyes) that > bicycle=no, and when the honest truth is that it's private land and the > owner doesn't seem to care, you need to put something to modify the default. isn't that bicycle=permissive? -- E

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Dave F. > wrote: > > As Richard M. alluded to, highway=footway as no inference to > bicycles at > all, either yes or no. > > > The default access restrictions, according to > http://wiki.openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > "no inference at all" is fine for a tagger or a renderer, but a router > cannot work with it. It will have to decide whether or not to route > bicycles over the way, one way or the other > > Cyclemap (and any really complete renderer) would s

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Mike N. wrote: > > http://tags.bigtincan.com/ > Nice proof of concept. But to be honest, the wiki software does most of that already. And it's useful to be able to link to other tags in descriptions. Now that I look closer, it looks like the wiki page has delibe

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Dave F. wrote: > > Steve Bennett wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Dave F. >> > wrote: > >> > >> Then don't mark it with bicycle=* at all. > >> > >> > >> That's ab

Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

http://tags.bigtincan.com/ I can visualize what is needed to make it work as it should, but am short on time to be able to start on this for now. From: Steve Bennett Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 8:07 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: [Tagging] Solving the tag c

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Steve Bennett wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Dave F. > > wrote: >> >>     Then don't mark it with bicycle=* at all. >> >> >> That's abdicating my interpretation. > Err? > > Anyway... > > As Richard M. allud

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Dave F. wrote: > As Richard M. alluded to, highway=footway as no inference to bicycles at > all, either yes or no. > > The default access restrictions, according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictionsshow "designated" for fo

[Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Mike N. wrote: > The tagging reference procedure is definitely grown beyond easy usage. > An interactive tagging reference resource like the John Smith's demo site > from a short time ago is on the top of my "most wanted list". > > What's the URL for that? I car

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Dave F. > wrote: > > Then don't mark it with bicycle=* at all. > > > That's abdicating my interpretation. Err? Anyway... As Richard M. alluded to, highway=footway as no inference to bicycles at all, eith

Re: [Tagging] Government buildings

The tagging reference procedure is definitely grown beyond easy usage.An interactive tagging reference resource like the John Smith's demo site from a short time ago is on the top of my "most wanted list". From: Steve Bennett Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:55 AM To: Tag discussion, st

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Then don't mark it with bicycle=* at all. > > That's abdicating my interpretation (it's probably ok, if not explicitly condoned; nothing very bad will happen if you do it) in favour of a router's interpretation. Which may be the best thing to do,

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett wrote: > > Suitable for bikes? Sure. Lawful? Absolutely no idea. > Then don't mark it with bicycle=* at all. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

The problem is that highway=footway implies (in some people's eyes) that bicycle=no, and when the honest truth is that it's private land and the owner doesn't seem to care, you need to put something to modify the default. bicycle=whatever seems to capture it well, but bicycle=tolerated or bicycle

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Just so we're clear: > > The bicycle=* is used purely to indicate the lawfulness of access. > It does not cover the suitability of the the path such as the ground > conditions. That's done with surface=* > > Yep. Footpath through a churchground. F

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett wrote: > Though I still have trouble deciding for a lot of paths around here if > it's really "bicycle=yes" (implying some sort of deliberate intention > that bikes are allowed and a suitability for them) or "bicycle=no" > implying a strict prohibition. Whereas the reality is proba

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Regarding the "kerb" vs. "curb" question, the dictionary tells me that > "kerb" is british english, whereas "curb" is international english. I think > we want to stick with international english, right? > I think the norm is to use Britis

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > On 06/12/2009, at 16.16, Dave F. wrote: > >> Unfortunately I couldn't view your photo, but going on Steve B.'s link, > > Oops, I forgot to attach the pictures. Try again :-) The first picture > is typical of a city street, where you'll often see cars parked on the > s