So, no standalone cycleway will ever be mapped with the cycleway=track tag, and
no cycleway that is actually shown on a map will have the tag either? The tag
is never to actually be used on a cycleway, only on a motor-vehicle road to
indicate that a cycleway exists somewhere nearby, but isn't d
Agreed. In American usage, craft implies a decorative object, frequently
created by the person who will be using it, and always in a small-scale rather
than mass-production manner. Examples would be hand-thrown pottery, wood
carvings, and handmade jewelry. A craft store sells tools and suppli
On 9 January 2011 07:43, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> Nathan,
> I do not understand you at all.
> We agree about cycleway=lane: No seperation but defenitely a special place
> for bicycles.
> You stated in your last replay, and correct me if a I'm wrong.
> highway cycleway should be mapped if there is
On 9 January 2011 13:37, Stephen Hope wrote:
> I'm starting to be convinced that there is a cultural disconnect with
> the word craft. To me (and I suspect most English speakers) there has
> to almost be an arts aspect for something to be a craft. Whereas I'm
> starting to get the impression the
On 9 January 2011 13:36, Paul Norman wrote:
> I've been looking into this. How does this sound?
> waterway=dam and waterway=weir remain unchanged.
I'm still in favour of shifting these into flow control...
> The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong there -
> that's the
I'm starting to be convinced that there is a cultural disconnect with
the word craft. To me (and I suspect most English speakers) there has
to almost be an arts aspect for something to be a craft. Whereas I'm
starting to get the impression the German use is closer to what I
think of as trade or pr
> From: Steve Bennett
>
> On 5/01/2011 3:18 PM, John Smith wrote:
> > Perhaps a more generic approach would work, eg waterway=flow_control
> > flow_control=weir|sluice_gate|flood_gate|spillway_gate|
> Yeah something like that would be reasonable. What I'd like to see a lot
> more of is plann
On 9 January 2011 11:05, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Sorry, I don't follow. There should be a place=town node that is part of the
> boundary=town way? How could the centre of the town be on its boundary?
Sorry I thought you meant node, there is generally a need for a node
to mark the centre of a place
On 9/01/2011 11:48 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 9 January 2011 10:48, John Smith wrote:
On 9 January 2011 10:39, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me the difference between these two tags? Only place=town
appears to be documented. Both have ~~4000 usages on ways.
The place marker sh
On 9 January 2011 10:48, John Smith wrote:
> On 9 January 2011 10:39, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Can anyone tell me the difference between these two tags? Only place=town
>> appears to be documented. Both have ~~4000 usages on ways.
>
> The place marker should be part of the boundary as
On 9 January 2011 10:39, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
> Can anyone tell me the difference between these two tags? Only place=town
> appears to be documented. Both have ~~4000 usages on ways.
The place marker should be part of the boundary as well, because the
centre of the boundary and the cen
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me the difference between these two tags? Only
place=town appears to be documented. Both have ~~4000 usages on ways.
Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> Nathan,
> I do not understand you at all.
> We agree about cycleway=lane: No seperation but defenitely a special place
> for bicycles.
> You stated in your last replay, and correct me if a I'm wrong.
> highway cycleway should be mapped if th
Nathan,
I do not understand you at all.
We agree about cycleway=lane: No seperation but defenitely a special place
for bicycles.
You stated in your last replay, and correct me if a I'm wrong.
highway cycleway should be mapped if there is any kind of seperation, even
when it is only a seperatly
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> Please define seperation?
>
>
You are completely wrong. If there is no seperation, then tag it as a cycle
lane, not track. This thread is about cycle track.
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Nathan Edgars II
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 7:54 PM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
>
> Huh? If there's separation between the
Please define seperation?
-Robert-
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
From: Nathan Edgars II
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 7:54 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Robert Elsenaar
wrote:
Drawing s
I do think this is not a real probolem because our Map is never ready, next
mapper will correct these previous tags.
I'm more worried about hte mappers that think that in *every* cycleway=track
situation a seperated way is the best option to map it.
Re-mapping that is a greater problem.
-Robert
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> Drawing seperated ways is a workaround for a “Not yet solvable” problem. By
> drawing a second way, what’s not there, is implicitely wrong. There is NO
> SECOND WAY so try not to draw it then.
Huh? If there's separation between the cycleway
Drawing seperated ways is a workaround for a “Not yet solvable” problem. By
drawing a second way, what’s not there, is implicitely wrong. There is NO
SECOND WAY so try not to draw it then.
And yes I admit, I do use often the “second way solution” to solve complex
situations or situations were I
Robert Elsenaar schrieb:
Peter wrote:
If you tag it as cycleway:both=track, it's more clear.
Yes you are right. But implicite we have accepted several default in
our tags.
That's right.
But the problem is, that already hundreds or thousands of cycleway=track
tagged yet - but in reality they
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> Please keep in mind, that with this in mind, cycleway:both=track is more
> precise as cycleway=track could be due to another interpretation of the
> local mapper.
>
>
It's not more precise. Interpretation of tags is documented on the wiki an
Peter wrote:
If you tag it as cycleway:both=track, it's more clear.
Yes you are right. But implicite we have accepted several default in our
tags.
E.g. we tag highway=residential and more precice would be
highway:type=residential
And we tag surface=asphalt and more precise would be
highway:su
Am 08.01.2011 13:40, schrieb Robert Elsenaar:
Richard,
This is indeed a great cycleway=track. By the way it is nice that the
feature
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/right_left has
been approved.
Your example can be taggen by:
highway=*
cycleway=track
In fact it is cyclew
Richard,
This is indeed a great cycleway=track. By the way it is nice that the
feature http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/right_left has
been approved.
Your example can be taggen by:
highway=*
cycleway=track
In fact it is cycleway:both=track, but with no :right or :left we me
25 matches
Mail list logo
