Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Liz wrote: > I can think of plenty and they are bicycle safe - even on the trunk road > with a limit of 110kmh > but they are not high traffic roads, crossing roads are few > > http://billiau.net/zoph/photo.php?photo_id=3182 > > That's on the Cobb Highway. > Shoulder is not r

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote: > > Is a 90km/h primary road safe bikeable? > > I know people who would be willing to ride a bicycle on a 55 mph > primary road with no shoulder and one lane in each direction (not that > I can think of such a road, other than maybe a few short bridges). > Add in

[Tagging] Natasha Noy and Peter Yim keynote speakers at SERES (ISWC), CfP -Semantic Repositories

== CALL FOR PAPERS == 1st International Workshop on Semantic Repositories for the Web (SERES 2010) http://www.ontologydynamics.org/od/index.php/seres2010/ at the 9th International S

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Dave F. wrote: > On 03/08/2010 09:13, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> Shoulders are actually more important to pedestrians than cyclists. A >> good cyclist won't care if there's a shoulder, but a good pedestrian >> must walk against traffic and be prepared to get out o

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On 03/08/2010 09:13, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I'm not sure this is a good idea. cycleway=* should be for something designated for cyclists. I agree. But cyclists aren't required to use the shoulder (except on some freeways), so cycleway=shoulder is misleading. (They also aren't required t

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On 03/08/2010 14:18, Daniel Tremblay wrote: For me, bicycle=yes means that it is safe for bicycle That is incorrect. Safety is subjective... or that bicycle is officialy allowed on that road. This is the correct usage for bicycle=yes Cheers Dave F. ___

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony wrote: >> Yes, bicycles are allowed to >> share the main roadway, but only if for some reason the shoulder is >> unsuitable. > > Where is this? In Florida bicycles are always allowed to use the > rig

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> Shoulders are actually more important to pedestrians than cyclists. A >> good cyclist won't care if there's a shoulder, but a good pedestrian >> must walk against traffic and be prepared to

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Shoulders are actually more important to pedestrians than cyclists. A > good cyclist won't care if there's a shoulder, but a good pedestrian > must walk against traffic and be prepared to get out of the way if > walking in the travel lane.

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Daniel Tremblay wrote: > Is a 90km/h primary road safe bikeable? I know people who would be willing to ride a bicycle on a 55 mph primary road with no shoulder and one lane in each direction (not that I can think of such a road, other than maybe a few short bridges

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

Nathan Edgars II schrieb: >> maxspeed (already there), > Unless it's lower than normal cycling speed this has nothing to do with > cycling. There is quite a difference between a road with maxspeed=30 or 100 km/h for a cyclist. colliar ___ Tagging mai

Re: [Tagging] shoulder tags (was: tag groupings)

Steve Bennett schrieb: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Daniel Tremblay wrote: >> I've suggested a shoulder=yes/no tag. Somebody came out with a complex >> structure (probably valid) for shoulders. Does it really have to be that >> complicated? I don't know. You, speclists, know better than m

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Daniel Tremblay wrote: > For me, bicycle=yes means that it is safe for bicycle or that bicycle is > officialy allowed on that road. Maybe I could apply the tag for the > "sharrow" definition given in the discussion. Maybe it is the best way to > do it without crea

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

For me, bicycle=yes means that it is safe for bicycle or that bicycle is officialy allowed on that road. Maybe I could apply the tag for the "sharrow" definition given in the discussion. Maybe it is the best way to do it without creating new tags or tag values. Bicycle=yes on marked sharrow road

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Daniel Tremblay wrote: > Back to the primary objective of my suggestion: when I am preparing a > cycling ride on unknown-to-me roads that are not marked as cycleways, I > would like to know if those are bike-able: The tag for this is bicycle=yes/no. > it is paved o

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

I give up. Looks like openstreetmap will not be helpful for me. I will continue to document cycleways=lane, cycleways=track, *cn_ref as I see them in my neibourghood but will not try to go further than this. Back to the primary objective of my suggestion: when I am preparing a cycling ride on un

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Pieren wrote: > Until now, we had a pretty clear definition of cycleway=lane (sharing the > main roads infrastructure) and cycleway=track (along the road but > separated). If you introduce more values, you should clearly explain on the > wiki what is the difference

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > cycleway=shoulder > (There is no bike lane, but a rideable shoulder). > > cycleway=sharrow > (There are marking on the road for bikes, but not an exclusive bike lane). > > Until now, we had a pretty clear definition of cycleway=lane (sharing

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > cycleway=shoulder > (There is no bike lane, but a rideable shoulder). > > Sure, we could debate the shoulder thing forever, but "cycleway=shoulder" is > easy, and covers 90% of the reasons for mapping it: so cyclists can > distinguish between

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

Hi all, Did this discussion die out? The following two suggestions seem pretty sensible: cycleway=shoulder (There is no bike lane, but a rideable shoulder). cycleway=sharrow (There are marking on the road for bikes, but not an exclusive bike lane). The term "sharrow" was unfamiliar to me,