On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote:
> I'm asking what you think the definition within the wiki ought to be. Liz
> gave one, "a way which is free of bicycle obstructions". I don't think it
> was a good one - even if you ignore ways which allow motor vehicle traffic,
> and ways which prohibit bicyc
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > So, what's your definition of "cycleway"?
>
> Do you mean the tag, or the reality?
I'm asking what you think the definition within the wiki ought to be. Liz
gave one, "a way which is fr
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > So, what's your definition of "cycleway"?
>
> Do you mean the tag, or the reality? If the reality, then I could
> describe several classes of bike path and multiuse path and pedestrian
> path.
Just to g
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Anthony wrote:
> So, what's your definition of "cycleway"?
Do you mean the tag, or the reality? If the reality, then I could
describe several classes of bike path and multiuse path and pedestrian
path.
I would distinguish:
1) pedestrian paths, footpaths etc which
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > the cycleway tag means that you can cycle along without
> > having to get off and port your bicycle over a fence
>
> But Liz, this definition isn't on the wiki. Have you documented your
> definition *somewhere*? How am I supposed to know that you mean thi
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Liz wrote:
>
> the cycleway tag means that you can cycle along without
> having to get off and port your bicycle over a fence
But Liz, this definition isn't on the wiki. Have you documented your
definition *somewhere*? How am I supposed to know that you mean this
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks
> like
> > shared-use, which means highway=path.
>
> I vehemently object to this rule that "shareduse means highwa
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> I'd like to get into the wiki and mark all the cycling pages as "there
> is little consensus for the status quo, please participate in the
> discussion at X". What do you think?
Yes, good, but beyond that it would be useful to *list* at le
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote:
> Still, I think
> I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks
> like shared-use, which means highway=path.
No
a cycleway is a way which is free of bicycle obstructions and that is not
implicit in the path at all.
I do understand th
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, James Livingston wrote:
> It had source=nearmap because it was traced from nearmap. I've never seen
> source:highway=* to indicate how they decided what kind of path it is.
It's rare, but probably a good idea. Sometimes if I move a few nodes
on an existing way th
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks like
> shared-use, which means highway=path.
I vehemently object to this rule that "shareduse means highway=path".
I think the wiki just hasn't caught up with reality yet.
T
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:05 PM, James Livingston wrote:
>
> It had source=nearmap because it was traced from nearmap. I've never seen
> source:highway=* to indicate how they decided what kind of path it is.
Me either, but this idea is documented:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source
On 12/12/2009, at 7:47 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:02 PM, James Livingston wrote:
>>
>> The current solution I've seen near Brisbane is "do whatever you prefer",
>> which is why several paths flip back and forwards between footway and
>> cycleway depending on who traced e
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> (Oh, I see what it is, using Google Street View, so I won't tell lest we
>> taint the entire database or something.)
>
> I also see a sign at one of the entrances to the path. With a picture of
> something. Am I allowed to tell you what it's a
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Anthony wrote:
> (Oh, I see what it is, using Google Street View, so I won't tell lest we
> taint the entire database or something.)
>
I also see a sign at one of the entrances to the path. With a picture of
something. Am I allowed to tell you what it's a pictu
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> >
>> > This is NearMap? Can't you take a sample of people traveling over the
>> way,
>> > and if it's more than 50% bicyclists, use highw
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> > This is NearMap? Can't you take a sample of people traveling over the
> way,
> > and if it's more than 50% bicyclists, use highway=cycleway?
> >
> > Or is it too short and there aren't
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> This is NearMap? Can't you take a sample of people traveling over the way,
> and if it's more than 50% bicyclists, use highway=cycleway?
>
> Or is it too short and there aren't any people traveling over the way?
Here is the path: http://www.nea
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:02 AM, James Livingston wrote:
> On 11/12/2009, at 5:44 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > The current wiki definition of highway=cycleway is "mainly or
> > exclusively for bicycles". This I cannot be sure of from the aerial
> > imagery, nor can I of anything to do with the law.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:02 PM, James Livingston wrote:
>
> The current solution I've seen near Brisbane is "do whatever you prefer",
> which is why several paths flip back and forwards between footway and
> cycleway depending on who traced each section :-\ Given that I don't know
> which is a
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Mike Harris wrote:
>
> I would probably tag it - according to what it looked like - either as
> highway=cycleway or as highway=footway and then add foot=yes (or permissive)
> and bicycle=yes (or permissive) to make it clear that it is OK both for
> cyclists and ped
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Nop wrote:
>
>> Could/should I add an additional tag to clarify that I really don't
>> know the legal status/designation/whatever of the path? If yes, what
>> should that additional tag be?
>
> An additional tag or Fixme will not help, as it is ingored by tools and
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Dave F. wrote:
>
> The answer is No, don't tag it as a cycleway if you don't that it's a
> cycleway.
> Map what you see on the ground. If there's no sign or you don't have a
> document stating it as one, don't tag it.
Understood.
> Remember with the cycleway tag
Dave F. wrote:
> Roy Wallace wrote:
>
>> If I trace (from aerial imagery) a path that I'm pretty sure would be
>> great to ride on, and that appears to have been made nice and wide for
>> cyclists, could/should I tag this as highway=cycleway? I know that
>> pedestrians are probably welcome to wa
Roy Wallace wrote:
> If I trace (from aerial imagery) a path that I'm pretty sure would be
> great to ride on, and that appears to have been made nice and wide for
> cyclists, could/should I tag this as highway=cycleway? I know that
> pedestrians are probably welcome to walk on it as well (in Austr
On 11/12/2009, at 5:44 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> The current wiki definition of highway=cycleway is "mainly or
> exclusively for bicycles". This I cannot be sure of from the aerial
> imagery, nor can I of anything to do with the law. What to do...
Ah, the curse of NearMap being too good.
The curre
If it's wide and not explicitly banned to cars then it's highway=track. If
it looks better than ropey, give it a tracktype.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> If I trace (from aerial imagery) a path that I'm pretty sure would be
> great to ride on, and that appears to
Roy Wallace says ...
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Wallace
> Sent: 11 December 2009 07:45
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycl
Hi!
Am 11.12.2009 08:44, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> If I trace (from aerial imagery) a path that I'm pretty sure would be
> great to ride on, and that appears to have been made nice and wide for
> cyclists, could/should I tag this as highway=cycleway? I know that
> pedestrians are probably welcome to
29 matches
Mail list logo
