>> That's what I want to say to _you_. Tag what you can actually see. And
>> where I live, that usually does not include municipial regulations.
>> Whether a path is meant for cyclists or just for pedestrians, is
>> something I decide from the path and what's around it,
> See Andre? This is where y
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > (It does make me think that *signed* bicycle prohibitions should be
> > tagged differently from *statutory* bicycle prohibitions, though. As
> > the OP said, you really don't want to ignore a sign like that.)
>
> Un
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Nice analysis :). But just because this may be "all you care about",
> it doesn't mean it's an appropriate set of categories to use for
> tagging.
>
Roy, I understand your position. You've stated it numerous times. If you
have a new angle yo
Thanks Paul,
I did answer, but am saving it in my drafts folder & sent it to others for
peer review 1st.
Cheers,
Sam Vekemans
Across Canada Trails
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Sam Vekemans wrote:
>
> > Where the only way i know to map it is to use a relation and call
Andre Engels wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Dave F. wrote:
>
>
>>> highway=cycleway only used for well-engineered & public/permanant
>>> cycle tracks (ie could you safely do 20kph on it)
>>>
>> ???
>> It's only a cycleway only if it's signed or documented as a cycleway.
>>
>>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> In terms of 2), there are maybe four categories:
> 1) High quality bike paths: wide, smooth asphalt, gentle corners, no kerbs.
> 2) Lower quality paths: concrete, or narrow, or with bumps and kerbs and
> stuff
> 3) Unsealed paths.
> 4) Pat
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> (It does make me think that *signed* bicycle prohibitions should be
>> tagged differently from *statutory* bicycle prohibitions, though. As
>> the OP said, you really don't want to ignore a sign like that.)
>
> Unless
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Martin Fossdal Guttesen
wrote:
>
> but i dont know if or how i should tag the addres where the box is, every
> post box has an address with an street name and an number
If the "post box has an address", I'd suggest tagging the post box
with its address. This will
Mike Harris didn't write that - though I did read it!
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Paul Johnson
> Sent: 17 December 2009 01:31
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> Ambiguous. Paris has a far different idea about business hours than New
>> York, which has a different idea than Salem, and so on. Even within the
>> same geopolitical region, for example, "business hours" are
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> We considered proposing:
>
>cycleway=curb
>
> which is short, but as someone pointed out, you don't actually ride
> the bike on the curb like you do the track or the lane. Alternatively
> we could use:
>
>cycleway=curb_delimited
I'm against this. If it's s
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > (It does make me think that *signed* bicycle prohibitions should be
> > tagged differently from *statutory* bicycle prohibitions, though. As
> > the OP said, you really don't want to ignore a sign like that.)
>
> Un
Sam Vekemans wrote:
> Where the only way i know to map it is to use a relation and call it
> "route=greenway" and dont have it render on the cyclemap. Just map the
> sections as appropriate.
Greenway is the US/Canadianism for "cycleway."
___
Taggin
Hi
I am about to add all the post boxes in my country by hand (there are only 115
of them)
but i dont know if or how i should tag the addres where the box is, every post
box has an address with an street name and an number
i have imported all the house addressses before and then there is alway
Steve Bennett wrote:
> (It does make me think that *signed* bicycle prohibitions should be
> tagged differently from *statutory* bicycle prohibitions, though. As
> the OP said, you really don't want to ignore a sign like that.)
Unless your local jurisdiction is violating international law, there
David Calder wrote:
> As a travelling cyclist I need to know if I am going to be able to take a
> particular road or not before I get there. I know bicycles are not permitted
> on motorways/autobahns/autovias etc so I suspect that it is implied that
> bicycle=no on roads designated as such on the
Liz wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Cyclists aren't allowed on most forest service trails, and those are
>> posted horse=no, bicycle=no, foot=yes. Really, what's wrong with the
>> "bicycle=destination" idea I suggested for navigation purposes, without
>> trying to supersede c
Andre Engels wrote:
> I don't think anyone is suggesting not tagging this as bicycle=no. The
> issue, as I see it, is what to do with roads and paths where there is
> _not_ a sign that specifies whether or not you may cycle there.
No sign means bicycles are allowed in Vienna Convention countries.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> > For example, just one example, here in Florida bicycles are allowed to
>> use
>> > certain roadways (most roadways, in fact, but I'm too lazy to look up
>> the
>> >
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> > For example, just one example, here in Florida bicycles are allowed to
> use
> > certain roadways (most roadways, in fact, but I'm too lazy to look up the
> > exact law right this second). I'm not sure that's a universal
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> Tag what you can actually see. And
> where I live, that usually does not include municipial regulations.
> Whether a path is meant for cyclists or just for pedestrians, is
> something I decide from the path and what's around it, not from a
>
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Dave F. wrote:
>> highway=cycleway only used for well-engineered & public/permanant
>> cycle tracks (ie could you safely do 20kph on it)
>
> ???
> It's only a cycleway only if it's signed or documented as a cycleway.
>
> Your logic is flawed:
> "Cycle up a steep h
Anthony wrote:
> For example, just one example, here in Florida bicycles are allowed to use
> certain roadways (most roadways, in fact, but I'm too lazy to look up the
> exact law right this second). I'm not sure that's a universal law,
> applicable everyone in the world.
Unless Florida is someh
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Dave F. wrote:
> Liz wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Dave F. wrote:
> >>> a cycleway is a way which is free of bicycle obstructions and that is
> >>> not implicit in the path at all.
> >>
> >> I disagree. Where a cycleway crosses a vehicular road I would expect to
> >> see cycl
Liz wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Dave F. wrote:
>
>>> a cycleway is a way which is free of bicycle obstructions and that is not
>>> implicit in the path at all.
>>>
>> I disagree. Where a cycleway crosses a vehicular road I would expect to
>> see cycle barriers to either slow down or pre
Mike Harris wrote:
> Mike Harris
>
> Well, I'm always up for a challenge! But I'm talking about paths across
> fields with crops - ever tried biking through a maize (US: corn) field - or
> over a ploughed field - or through bracken - and after about 50 stiles even
> the keenest biker might get a
Richard Mann wrote:
> I really wouldn't try to do something massively different from what
> has gone before. Instead it's probably better to use fewer tags more
> simply, and avoid using tags in situations & for meanings that are
> unclear/disputed.
>
> highway=path for rough paths
> highway=f
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Liz wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Cyclists aren't allowed on most forest service trails, and those are
> > posted horse=no, bicycle=no, foot=yes. Really, what's wrong with the
> > "bicycle=destination" idea I suggested for navigation purpo
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Cyclists aren't allowed on most forest service trails, and those are
> posted horse=no, bicycle=no, foot=yes. Really, what's wrong with the
> "bicycle=destination" idea I suggested for navigation purposes, without
> trying to supersede common sense (ie, i
29 matches
Mail list logo
