... I've refrained so far from getting into this burgeoning discussion thread
... just 2 humble pleas though:
1. It is different in different countries. In England there are cycleways ...
typically part of long-distance non-urban routes that have been created either
primarily for cyclists or a
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
John Smith writes:
> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
> polygons + info from the lookup table
Does osm2pgsql have that
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
> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
> polygons + info from the lookup table
What is the advantage in separating the shi
"Mike N." writes:
>> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
>> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
>> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
>> polygons + info from the lookup table
>
> What is the adva
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
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
2010/1/7 Matthias Julius :
> John Smith writes:
>
>> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
>> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
>> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
>> polygons + info from the look
Hi there,
5 months ago I started scratching a new tag amenity=love_hotel [1].
Since there was no recent activity, I think it's time to call your
attention one more time to it and start voting. What do you think of
it? The page explains itself (I think), but a love_hotel ("motel" in
Brazil, differe
John Smith writes:
> 2010/1/7 Matthias Julius :
>> John Smith writes:
>>
>>> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
>>> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
>>> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
>>>
2010/1/7 Matthias Julius :
> You want to parse the wiki page from within osm2pgsql? I am not so sure
> that's a good idea. I think it should read that information from a
> local file (which can be updated from the wiki by an independent tool).
For all it matters, the raw wiki page could be cache
2010/1/7 Arlindo Pereira
>
> 1: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Love_Hotel
>
>
I like your request and I think this is useful in Brazil. Did you mean you
wanted to start voting?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@open
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I think this is useful in Brazil.
I have heard of such in Tokyo as well.
Niagara Falls NY USA has motels that specialize in 'honeymoon
specials' which are rather similar but cater to longer stays and
actually presume as opposed to pret
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
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
John Smith writes:
> Well relations aren't ways, the ways go through/under/ buildings.
Do they? Did I miss something? Last I know is that they are rendered
on top of buildings even if they are on a lower layer.
Matthias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tag
2010/1/7 Matthias Julius :
> John Smith writes:
>
>> Well relations aren't ways, the ways go through/under/ buildings.
>
> Do they? Did I miss something? Last I know is that they are rendered
> on top of buildings even if they are on a lower layer.
How is that rendering bug related to using rel
30 matches
Mail list logo
