Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

+1 for UK too. Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of John Smith > Sent: 02 December 2009 21:47 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no > > 2009/1

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

IMHO it would be more useful if bicycle=no meant 'no cycling' ... I think there are quite a few situations where a cyclist could wheel (or carry) the bike but not ride it. Without bicycle=no it would be difficult to know that it was 'no cycling' but with 'bicycle=no' + 'foot=yes' it would be reason

[Tagging] Non-parking car lots

In an area I'm working on, there are a few car factories, with huge lots of cars awaiting distribution. It's not really a parking lot, and putting a P on the map would be confusing to anyone looking for parking. Suggestions? Same would go for used car salesyards. And while I'm at it, how to tag c

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

On 12/3/09, Steve Bennett wrote: > And while I'm at it, how to tag carparks that are clearly not for > public access? Staff carparks, carparks in government buildings... I've tagged them as any other carpark, and then added access=private on both the carpark area and the service ways -- Elena `

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

2009/12/3 Steve Bennett > In an area I'm working on, there are a few car factories, with huge > lots of cars awaiting distribution. It's not really a parking lot, and > putting a P on the map would be confusing to anyone looking for > parking. Suggestions? > > Same would go for used car salesyard

Re: [Tagging] tagging Greenways (was: Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vsfootwayvs cycleway vs...))

These short-distance signposted routes can be tagged as lcn (local cycle network) relations. I'd prefer there to be a distinction between these (which I think of as leisure/tourist routes and would call "tcn") and utility routes into a town centre, but there isn't a distinction at the moment (and

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On public land you can usually push a bike and be treated as a pedestrian, but that's not always the case on private land (eg the University Parks in Oxford) - bicycles are banned altogether. So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using bicycle=no for situations where riding

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > Wouldn't those be simply commercial or industrial areas? I think there's no > need to record what kind of product is stocked there, and cars (in that > case) are just another kind of product. Is there a tag for a storage area then? I agree t

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Paul Johnson wrote: > I'd tag a section marked as "cyclists must dismount" as a footway, > bicycle=destination (since there's no way in hell you'd want to take a > route that bogus as anything but a last resort). Except that in Hull, UK two of the National Cycle Network routes (1 & 65) share a fo

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

2009/12/3 Steve Bennett > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > Wouldn't those be simply commercial or industrial areas? I think there's > no > > need to record what kind of product is stocked there, and cars (in that > > case) are just another kind of product. > > Is there

[Tagging] More about parking

Hi, Here in Denmark it is quite common that a street has parking "slots" that can be either perpendicular or at a 45 degree angle to the street. These slots can sometimes be on both sides of the street. They are marked with lines painted on the pavement. Any idea on how to tag these? (I can

Re: [Tagging] More about parking

Hi, both kinds of street-side parking are also present all through Italy, and probably in Europe and in the rest of the world. There has been discussion about this in the wiki [1]. Personally, I haven't tagged any yet. I think it's safe to assume (at least in Italy) that the default is that you ca

Re: [Tagging] More about parking

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > both kinds of street-side parking are also present all through Italy, and > probably in Europe and in the rest of the world. There has been discussion > about this in the wiki [1]. Personally, I haven't tagged any yet. I think > it's safe to

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thursday 03 December 2009 11:06:18 Richard Mann wrote: > I've seen bicycle=dismount tags. This is for situations on UK highways > where there's a sign saying "Cyclists Dismount" - but in the UK there is no > formal offence for disobeying the sign, and most cyclists would treat the > sign as mean

Re: [Tagging] More about parking

-- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On 03/12/2009, at 8:06 PM, Richard Mann wrote: > On public land you can usually push a bike and be treated as a pedestrian, > but that's not always the case on private land (eg the University Parks in > Oxford) - bicycles are banned altogether. Most of the time when I've seen those signs it has

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

Simone Saviolo wrote: > Wouldn't those be simply commercial or industrial areas? I think > there's no need to record what kind of product is stocked there, and > cars (in that case) are just another kind of product. I disagree. Maps can be used for referencing to the real world when going on a

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:00 AM, James Livingston wrote: >> So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using >> bicycle=no for situations where riding is not allowed, and >> access=private+foot=permissive for situations where bicycles aren't allowed. > > That sounds reasonable

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM, James Livingston wrote: >> So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using >> bicycle=no for situations where riding is not allowed, and >> access=private+foot=permissive for situations where bicycles aren't allowed. > > That sounds reasonable

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Ok, but backing to the first point. It is clear that in most, if not all places bycicle=no means that you cannot ride, but you can push unmounted. How about places that you cannot have a bike at all (such as inside of a shopping mall for instance)? Cheers 2009/12/3 Pieren > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

2009/12/3 Arlindo Pereira > Ok, but backing to the first point. It is clear that in most, if not all > places bycicle=no means that you cannot ride, but you can push unmounted. > How about places that you cannot have a bike at all (such as inside of a > shopping mall for instance)? > Are we star

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Er.. I'm currently doing that here in Rio :D http://osm.org/go/OVc08DWYY-- Cheers 2009/12/3 Emilie Laffray > > > 2009/12/3 Arlindo Pereira > > Ok, but backing to the first point. It is clear that in most, if not all >> places bycicle=no means that you cannot ride, but you can push unmounted.

Re: [Tagging] More about parking

I proposed a tag for tagging exactly this, but Cartinus was faster to paste the link ;) Be sure to check out the discussion page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/parking_lane Cheers 2009/12/3 Cartinus >

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Arlindo Pereira wrote: > Ok, but backing to the first point. It is clear that in most, if not all > places bycicle=no means that you cannot ride, but you can push unmounted. > How about places that you cannot have a bike at all (such as inside of a > shopping mall

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Access=private means that the rules are uncertain - so don't bank on being able to even push a bike. Richard On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Pieren wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM, James Livingston wrote: > >> So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using > bicycl

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

2009/12/3 Elena of Valhalla > On 12/3/09, Steve Bennett wrote: > > And while I'm at it, how to tag carparks that are clearly not for > > public access? Staff carparks, carparks in government buildings... > > I've tagged them as any other carpark, and then added access=private > on both the carpa

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

2009/12/3 Simone Saviolo > Wouldn't those be simply commercial or industrial areas? I think there's no > need to record what kind of product is stocked there, and cars (in that > case) are just another kind of product. > Yes, they would be an industrial area (not commercial), but that's for the

[Tagging] [tagging] RFC - Feature Proposal - covered - Last Call

Randy wrote: >There have been no comments to the "covered" proposal since the first >flurry. I'd like to move this to the Approved page if the group has no >objection, so I'll allow another day for comments, and then move it to >voting. > >Yes, I know there are those who are dead set against votin

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thursday 03 December 2009 16:58:43 Emilie Laffray wrote: > 2009/12/3 Arlindo Pereira > > > Ok, but backing to the first point. It is clear that in most, if not all > > places bycicle=no means that you cannot ride, but you can push unmounted. > > How about places that you cannot have a bike at a

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Cartinus wrote: > > But I don't know a sensible name for a tag for it right now. > > carriage_prohibited? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Friday 04 December 2009 06:23:42 Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Cartinus wrote: > > But I don't know a sensible name for a tag for it right now. > > > > carriage_prohibited? > > Steve They wouldn't fit on the escalators anyway ;)

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Cartinus wrote: > They wouldn't fit on the escalators anyway ;) > > As in, bicycle=carriage_prohibited. Maybe that's an australian use. Actually now that I google it, I guess "carriage" means, taking it on a train or something. All I can think of are bicycle=prohi

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

2009/12/4 Steve Bennett : > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Cartinus wrote: >> >> They wouldn't fit on the escalators anyway ;) >> > > As in, bicycle=carriage_prohibited. Maybe that's an australian use. Actually > now that I google it, I guess "carriage" means, taking it on a train or > something.

[Tagging] Restaurant delivery, takeaway, and no seating

Is there a standard way of tagging restaurants or fast food places, as having: 1) no seating 2) delivery 3) takeaway For #1, I suggest seating=no(perhaps this tag could also be used with seating=outdoors, if the place has outdoor seating) For #2, I suggest delivery=yes For #3, I suggest tak

Re: [Tagging] Restaurant delivery, takeaway, and no seating

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Katie Filbert wrote: > Is there a standard way of tagging restaurants or fast food places, as > having: > > 1) no seating > 2) delivery > 3) takeaway > > For #1, I suggest seating=no(perhaps this tag could also be used > with seating=outdoors, if the place has