Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Not far from here, there is a network of designated bicycle/multiuse trails. There are corresponding signs. These trails happen to be MTB trails. Not all bicycles are road bicycles, sorry for starting the obvious. On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Liz wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Alex Mauer wrot

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/8 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/1/8 Richard Mann >> >> So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed. >> Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this. If you are sure that there is zero official cycleways, where is the problem to change all this tagging to speci

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/8 Richard Mann > So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed. > Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this. > well, I'm pretty sure if you'd start today you would have changed them within some weeks, but still "mainly" designed could be interpreted for so

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > >> In bare bones basic, Steve, are you for or against using "highway = >> cycleway" for officially marked cycleways only? That's what I would >> like to understand :) >> >> > I'm "

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > In bare bones basic, Steve, are you for or against using "highway = > cycleway" for officially marked cycleways only? That's what I would > like to understand :) > > I'm "for" two things: 1) Offially marked cycleways being marked with hi

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > > I tried once to make an universal query for finding cycleable ways/paths but > concluded that it is impossible. I managed to get this far: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path#selecting_all_cyclewa

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

Just a side note, I think different rules for each country for footways can't be mapped exactly (some countries allow bikes on footways by default, some don't. What happens when country rules changes?). I personally would leave it to parsers/routers. Yes, maybe it's moves OSM just a little bit away

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/7 Steve Bennett : > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: >> >> Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's >> allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in > Heh, that makes about three people with very simple "takes"

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

Hi, I would be happy it I could get an instant yes or no answer to two questions: Can I walk along this thing? Can I cycle along this thing? I would love to see just yes or no alternatives, not anything like yes/no/designated/official. I know there may be a need to have a few hundred additional t

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: > 4) (Rarely) Designated for cyclists exclusively, usually with a pedestrian > path nearby. > eg On the Coathanger, the western way is for bicycles and the eastern way is for pedestrians. As I recall that is absolute and no pedestrians may use the western

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Nop wrote: > With cycleway it is mainly for bike with foot tolerated, so cycleway is > the equivalent of bike=designated, foot=yes. > Ok. To be absolutely clear: in Australia "mainly for bike with foot tolerated" does not exist. Also, "exclusively for bike" pract

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > > Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's > allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in > Heh, that makes about three people with very simple "takes" on the matter - and they're a

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > The biggest problem I can see at the moment is I really don't want to tag > anything "bicycle=designated" unless I'm certain it really *is* designated > that way (which I can't do from aerial photography), but I *do* want to tag > it "highwa

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, >> foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, >> bicycle=designated. > > Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Shoul

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 01/06/2010 07:10 AM, Nop wrote: > > No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path > proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it > differently. Their argumentation is like this: > - "designated" means there is a sign > - in my country, when there is a

[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

Anthony wrote: > highway=cycleway means highway=path, bicycle=designated. > > bicycle=designated means bicycles are explicitly allowed (generally, by > signage) > > highway=footway means highway=path, foot=designated For all practical purposes, yes. But to be exact, the meanings were defined on

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, > >> foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, > >> bicycle=designated. > >> > > No, a highway=footwa

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 06.01.2010 07:15, schrieb Steve Bennett: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport: > anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not > vice versa. > > Anyway, with the realisation that cyclew

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

Hi! Am 06.01.2010 13:00, schrieb Steve Bennett: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Pieren Ok, so having created an entry for Australia > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia), > now does the above rule apply? That is, in Australia, according to th

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/6 Steve Bennett : > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pieren wrote: >> >> It is an old page because designation and default access is an old >> topic and there is no "black and white" answer. In some countries, >> when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed for pedestrians >> and co

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pieren wrote: > > It is an old page because designation and default access is an old > topic and there is no "black and white" answer. In some countries, > when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed for pedestrians > and contributors do not want to be fo

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Steve Bennett > Is it "old" as in, obsolete? Should we make an Australian entry, or is it no > longer relevant? > It is an old page because designation and default access is an old topic and there is no "black and white" answer. In some countries, when you tag a cy

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Pieren wrote: > > No, a highway=footway, bicycle=designated is not the same as > highway=cycleway, foot=designated. If you just try to understand the > wiki definitions and not over-interpret them, you see that cycleway is > mainly/exclusively for bicycles where pe

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Pieren wrote: > and the poor Austrians, Swiss, Turkish > and the poor Belarus, Belgians, Brazilians, French, Dutch if it is not > also designated for pedestrians or an alternative for pedestrians > exists. > > Please stop considering OSM as a UK, Germany and more r

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, >> foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, >> bicycle=designated. >> No, a highway=footway, bicycle=designated is not the same as highway=cycleway, fo

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Liz wrote: > except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway > and the poor Austrians, Swiss, Turkish and the poor Belarus, Belgians, Brazilians, French, Dutch if it is not also designated for pedestrians or an alternative for pedestrians exists. Plea

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

2010/1/6, Roy Wallace : > > highway=path precisely fits your definition (in my mind) of "narrowway". > > So, use highway=path + access tags. +1 highway=path is the long-existing and equally long misunderstood solution to this osm problem. I don't get why some people hate it so much (or twist it to

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: > The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport: > anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not vice > versa. > except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

ely" for cyclists there will be a s**tload of re-tagging to do! _ From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: 06 January 2010 02:32 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Propos

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just > been called bike paths > that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike > Path here in Albany > has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Anthony wrote: > therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, > foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, > bicycle=designated. > > Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Should we be deprecating one or the other, or doing mass updates o

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 1/5/10 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path" > > very differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking > > track with unmade surface". > > > > http://www.opens

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

Lightbulb goes off. Now I get it. highway=cycleway means highway=path, bicycle=designated. bicycle=designated means bicycles are explicitly allowed (generally, by signage) highway=footway means highway=path, foot=designated therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway,

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > ... There are lots of shared use paths, and lots > of unlabelled paths. I basically want the shared use paths to be tagged as > cycleways (because that's the function they serve), and *some* of the > unlabelled paths to be tagged as cycleways.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On 1/5/10 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path" > very differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking > track with unmade surface". > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.77494&lon=-73.81625&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF t

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way >> to get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case, >> it's the construction of the path,

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way to > get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case, it's > the construction of the path, its location, etc. > Doesn't the lack of pedestrians

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple > and easy to apply. Yeah, it's just not useful in many countries - like Australia. Bike-only paths are almost non-existent. There are lots of shared use paths, a

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

2010/1/6 Steve Bennett > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so >> again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path >> suitable for cycling should

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of cycleway that people > can agree on and that is useful. > Well, I don't think you're ever going to get everyone to agree on anything, but: Cycleway - a way exclusively for cycles. Motorwa

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Nick Austin wrote: > > Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway + > bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway + > horse=yes.  There's no need for this "definition creep" nonsense. > > BTW, footway is a bad name.  

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On 01/05/2010 06:26 PM, Nick Austin wrote: > Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway + > bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway + > horse=yes. No it’s not. highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=path+bicycle=designated and highway=bridlew

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just > been called bike paths > that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike > Path here in Albany > has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable than > average. Much more suitable than average, if you like. > > Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have to > think about how to expres

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 1/5/10 6:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer > wrote: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. Each to their own, but I'd prefer: highway=cycleway+designation=o

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and > highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. > Each to their own, but I'd prefer: highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for those officially signposted) and highw

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so > again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path > suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway. I'll restate it: every way or path

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Alex Mauer wrote: > >> Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal >> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For "suitability" >> (whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes. > > In point of fact I would do neither, because

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 01/05/2010 03:05 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer > wrote: >> >>> My point is: There is an important difference between >>> - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) >>> - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling > ...

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer wrote: > >> My point is: There is an important difference between >> - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) >> - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling ... > > I would suggest that the difference between taggi

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Richard Mann wrote: > > ... lets find other tags to make the > distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into > highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that > people add tags if they want to convey a more preci

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop wrote: >> >> Real >> cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to >> avoid. > > highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P No. There seems to be some confusion in the Portland area about this. I'

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Richard Mann wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: >> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > > > wrote: >> > >> > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need >> to >> >

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 01/05/2010 06:29 AM, Nop wrote: > The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-) > > My point is: There is an important difference between > - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) > - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling But is

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 01/05/2010 05:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/1/5 Steve Bennett > >> Right, I'm not confusing the terms. Some people have used the word >> "designed" in definitions, as in "designed for bicycles". That's all. >> > > btw: is there a difference between dedicated and designated? Yes.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nop wrote: > My point is: There is an important difference between > - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) > - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling > > About like the difference between > - a road marked as one-way

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 05.01.2010 12:45, schrieb Richard Mann: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop > It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it. > > It's ridiculous because pedestrians can cross a cycleway on the level > (try that on a motorway), and 99.999% of the time pedestrians can walk > a

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

2010/1/5 Steve Bennett > Well, I*M*HO, it's close to perfect. If you (well, a reasonable person with > some common sense when it comes to bike paths - not something Roy would > admit to :)) looked through a map, and every time you saw something mapped > as a bike path, it corresponded to somethin

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/5 Steve Bennett > Right, I'm not confusing the terms. Some people have used the word > "designed" in definitions, as in "designed for bicycles". That's all. > btw: is there a difference between dedicated and designated? Legally. Although general practice (I believe) is that if a cyclewa

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop wrote: > Hi! > > Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > > wrote: > > > > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need > to > > avoid. > > > > I know German c

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/5 Nop : > Hi! > > Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > > wrote: >> >>     Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to >>     avoid. >> >> I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > wrote: > > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to > avoid. > > I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways > is ridicu

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop wrote: > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to > avoid. I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways is ridiculous :) But seriously, you have a point - usability by bikes should be on a separate tag

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 05.01.2010 11:00, schrieb Roy Wallace: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop wrote: >> >> Real >> cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to >> avoid. > > highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P There's a considerable fraction of mappers who

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop wrote: >> Real >> cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to >> avoid. > > highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P > Or indicated on an other way (e.g. with a different color of pavement) >

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop wrote: > > Real > cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to > avoid. highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://l

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Isn't that what a map is?  Some kind of look-up service for the real >> world? > > There is a layer of interpretation in the middle, that's the crucial > difference. I don't know what you mean. That tags have definitions? > Some people on

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 05.01.2010 03:51, schrieb Steve Bennett: > The important bit is to point out useful > information to cyclists - and labelling every single pedestrian path as > a cycleway would clearly be wrong. This is exactly why I think it is a bad thing. It is too strongly biased towards a cyclists p

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> The primary purpose of OSM is to create useful maps, not to provide some >> kind of look-up service for the real world. >> > > Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for th

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > If ... every time you saw something mapped > as a bike path, it corresponded to something you thought of as a bike path - > that would be perfect. Key words: "something YOU thought of as a bike path". If everyone thinks of a "bike path" in

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > The primary purpose of OSM is to create useful maps, not to provide some > kind of look-up service for the real world. > Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for the real world? ___

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > Let me say back to you what you just said: "A cycleway is a cycleway > if someone would call this a bike path". IMHO that's not helpful. > Well, I*M*HO, it's close to perfect. If you (well, a reasonable person with some common sense when it co

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > > This mindset leads to the situation we currently have - people using > the same tag for multiple overlapping purposes. If you want > fragmentation of the OSM database according to country, then this is > not something I agree with. > > Whew,

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > If it's a short path between two buildings or > something, I wouldn't call that "especially suitable for cycling". Others might. There is a lot of fuzzy area here. This is a problem. It's called unverifiability. > And to reiterate, I have

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Nop wrote: > According to these hints, cyclists will tag even more minor roads, > I did say "and cannot be used by cars." but I probably should have made that more clear. A road is never a cycleway. > pedestrian ways If it's a pedestrian way which is "especial

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Alex Mauer wrote: > The definition given above doesn’t say anything about what it’s designed > for. Designated is not the same as designed. > Right, I'm not confusing the terms. Some people have used the word "designed" in definitions, as in "designed for bicycle

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/4 Liz > I don't see a mountain bike track as equivalent to a cycleway. > I would specifically exclude a MTB track from "cycleway" > > +1, still I agree with most of the comments above that the proposed change of the definition would not improve the situation. cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Alex Mauer wrote: > Your criteria for a “well-suited” cycle way are inapplicable to many > cycleways. One big example is mountain bike trails, which fail nearly > all of them: good surface, smoothness, gentle curves, signs giving > priority to bicycles, and possibly navigabilit

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Steve Bennett writes: >> >> After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would >> like for cycleway would be something like "the way is especially well suited >> to use by bicycles". > > The point of a map is to con

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 01/04/2010 06:42 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Roy Wallace > wrote: >> >> Err no. "highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or >> exclusively for bicycles"; "the route is designated for bicycles" >> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dc

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Steve Bennett wrote: > After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would > like for cycleway would be something like "the way is especially well suited > to use by bicycles". This definition applies to many ways that also fulfil definitions for other highway values (e.g.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 04.01.2010 13:42, schrieb Steve Bennett: > Things that make a cycleway well suited: > - good surface: smooth asphalt is better than compacted gravel > - smoothness: few bumps such as tree roots or kerbs > - gentle curves: few sharp turns > - signs or legislation giving priority to bicycles

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

Steve Bennett writes: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > >> >> Err no. "highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or >> exclusively for bicycles"; "the route is designated for bicycles" >> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway) >> >> > Afte

[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > > Err no. "highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or > exclusively for bicycles"; "the route is designated for bicycles" > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway) > > After much thought, I think I've finally