[Tagging] Cycleways

While working on an area near my parents' house recently, I discovered a bike path I'd never even heard of before, which goes from near their house all the way to a train station. Thanks OSM! I think I'll try it out this weekend...and I'll try not to even think of how to tag it. Have a good weeken

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Dave F. wrote: > > documents. If it's two meters wide, and the curves are rounded rather > > than sharp, I call it a cycleway. > > Why can't a cycleway have 'sharps'? (by that I assume you mean large > radius bends) because you can fall off trying to go around sharp corners, t

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

Liz wrote: > because you can fall off trying to go around sharp corners, that's why > where a sharp is a small radius bend That doesn't prevent it from being a cycleway! There's no such thing as a dangerous road, just incompetent users. if there a sharp bend, then slow down! Ta Dave F.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

Andre Engels wrote: >>> That's what I want to say to _you_. Tag what you can actually see. And >>> where I live, that usually does not include municipial regulations. >>> Whether a path is meant for cyclists or just for pedestrians, is >>> something I decide from the path and what's around it, >>>

Re: [Tagging] Cycleways

Steve Bennett wrote: > > Have a good weekend, everyone :) > Still got Friday to get through on my side of the world :-( ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Andre Engels wrote: That's what I want to say to _you_. Tag what you can actually see. And where I live, that usually does not include municipial regulations. Whether a path is meant for cyclists or just for pedestrians, is some

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Dave F. wrote: > >> In other words, whenever I see a path somewhere, I should say nothing > >> about who it is for? Just let the user of the map or the builder of > >> the mapping software decide? That may be

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways

Paul Johnson writes: > Sam Vekemans wrote: > >> Where the only way i know to map it is to use a relation and call it >> "route=greenway" and dont have it render on the cyclemap. Just map the >> sections as appropriate. > > Greenway is the US/Canadianism for "cycleway." I don't follow this. I

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

Hi, Richard Mann wrote: >> Oh, now you know what I know better than I do? I HAVE HAD IT WITH >> YOU! GOODBY [...] > Perhaps this strand has run it's > natural course for the moment. I WOULD SAY ANY STRAND WHERE PEOPLE START TO SHOUT HAS RUN ITS COURSE! Hopefully not "its natural course" thoug

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways

On 18/12/2009 13:48, Greg Troxel wrote: > I would use "greenway" to describe a large linear park that might > contain a bike path and footpaths, as in > > http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/ Or perhaps the rather amazing High Line http://www.thehighline.org/about/park-information an old elevate

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

Richard Mann wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Andre Engels > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Dave F. > wrote: > >> In other words, whenever I see a path somewhere, I should say > nothing > >> abo

Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes

Roy Wallace writes: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Martin Fossdal Guttesen > wrote: >> >> but i dont know if or how i should tag the addres where the box is, every >> post box has an address with an street name and an number > > If the "post box has an address", I'd suggest tagging the post

Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes

-- From: "Matthias Julius" Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 3:09 PM To: Subject: Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes > Roy Wallace writes: > >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Martin Fossdal Guttesen >> wrote: >>> >>> but i dont know if or

Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes

"Martin Fossdal Guttesen" writes: > -- > From: "Matthias Julius" > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 3:09 PM > To: > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes > >> Roy Wallace writes: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Martin Fossdal Gu

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Nice analysis :). But just because this may be "all you care about", >> it doesn't mean it's an appropriate set of categories to use for >> tagging. > > Roy, I understand your position. You've stated it numerous times. If you have > a ne

Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Matthias Julius wrote: > >> it is the address of the building that the box is attached/fixet onto or the >> building that is closest to it > > Then I wouldn't tag the box with an address. +1. Tag the "address of the building" on the building, not the box. ___

Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes

-- From: "Roy Wallace" Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:37 PM To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Matthias Julius > wrote: >> >>> it is the address

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > > Fair enough. So how about we look at this bit: "Sure, you might be > able to save a couple of KB's in the database by using your > conglomerated, fuzzy categorisation scheme, but I think you'll find it > won't solve the current problem. > I

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> What is your response to that? In particular, >> >> 1) What do you think has caused the current problem (i.e. tags like >> footway/cycleway/bicycle being used with inconsistent meanings) > > I've actually not been following the recent thr

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Roads are roads, rivers are rivers...but what the hell *is* the difference > between a bike path and a footpath? > I'm not sure you can even say "roads are roads". What's the difference between a road and a foot/bike path? What do you thi

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Roads are roads, rivers are rivers...but what the hell *is* the difference >> between a bike path and a footpath? >> > > I'm not sure you can even say "roads are roads". What's the differ

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > > Well, ask yourself: what verifiable information about this path can I > share with others? That's what you should tag. In this example, > "surface=pavers, width=0.75" sounds fine to me. > I actually can't think what that information would

Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes

"Martin Fossdal Guttesen" writes: > -- > From: "Roy Wallace" > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:37 PM > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes > >> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Matt

Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes

Matthias Julius wrote: > >I wonder what purpose this is supposed to serve. If a post box is >attached to a building it might make sense to represent that in OSM. >But, the fact that is is near a specific building is best indicated by >putting it near that building, IMHO. > >Matthias I concur. IM