Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for the great divide route.   There are also many websites which discuss the route and show maps.   It's in the public domain. On 10/13/19 2:26 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: (disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

On 14/10/19 07:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: (disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view) The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set from ACA,  which has their copyright on it. aca

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

(disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view) The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set from ACA, which has their copyright on it. aca sells the GPX track and the map. For these re

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 20:30, Paul Allen wrote: > > Edit the source, to vote, and you'll see there's a bit of a mess: > > {{Template:Proposed feature voting}} {{vote|yes}} > --[[User:Eric Bie|Eric B.]] ([[User talk:Eric Bie|talk]]) 15:03, 12 October > 2019 (UTC) It was a visual edit that added

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

I'm in favor of being flexible for cycling routes.   A good example is the great divide mtb route in Canada & US.   It is probably not signed very well, if at all.   It was created by a non-profit & I don't think it is an official government route.   It is used by quite a few people, both on bi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 19:17, François Lacombe wrote: > > I don't understand what do you mean exactly > Voting options are a template, and not visible on source > Look at the votes so far. The first vote is out of position and looks like this: {{vote|yes}} --Eric B.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers

Hi Graeme I don't understand what do you mean exactly Voting options are a template, and not visible on source What is the expected behaviour you think about? All the best François Le dim. 13 oct. 2019 à 02:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > Just letting you know that something has happened

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

Richard Fairhurst wrote > There is no need to have railway=crossing, railway=level_crossing, > railway=tram_crossing and railway=tram_level_crossing. They are > semantically > identical. The type of ways (tram or heavy rail, footpath or road) is > already expressed in the way tags and doesn't need

Re: [Tagging] railway crossings with cycleways

Warin wrote > I note they have not considered a bridleway. Actually would it be more reasonable to use only railway=crossing for any crossing of a railway as suggested by Richard Fairhurst at the http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Pedestrian-and-highway-crossings-of-tramways-tp5949364p5949424.html, th

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toy Libraries

Hi I started the vote on Toy Library proposal. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toy_library There was only one comment after the RFC which I added to the proposal, which asked for a subtag to identify toy libraries that focus on toys for people with disabilities. The vote wi