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
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
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"
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
John Smith writes:
> 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 re
2010/1/8 Matthias Julius :
> John Smith writes:
>
>> 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 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
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
Arlindo Pereira wrote:
> 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 lov
On 1/7/10 7:10 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Arlindo Pereira wrote:
>
>
>> 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 o
When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or
u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't
clear.
Thanks,
Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinf
Steve Bennett wrote:
>Thanks,
>Steve
Personally, if there is a connecting/crossing way, I tag it with the same
tag as the connecting way. If it is just a turnaround, I tag it as
highway=service.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreet
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or
> u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't
> clear.
Well, what is it better described by:
1) "link roads (sliproads / ramps)" --> primary_
At 2010-01-07 19:59, Steve Bennett wrote:
>When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or
>u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki
>isn't clear.
I tag them as highway=x_link where the roads being linked are tagged
highway=x (e.g. highway=motorw
14 matches
Mail list logo
