I generally agree with this approach.
When buses and bikes share a lane, I'd probably stick to cycleway=lane
for the moment, or possibly cycleway=bus_lane.
Richard
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM, esperanza wrote:
> How to tag busways ?
> I added some cases in this wiki page :
> http://wiki.ope
2010/11/15 Craig Wallace :
> On 14/11/2010 20:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> 2010/11/14 Craig Wallace:
BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could
be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural
and/or landuse.
>>>
>>> I thin
On 2010-11-14 20:30, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> landuse=nature_reserve is your own personal concept. Please have a look
> at (and make yourself comfortable with) the existing map features before
> you discuss here.
Arrogance doesn't bring any respect to your point of view. Yes it's
leisure=nature_reser
The Cambridgeshire busway is tagged highway=bus_guideway (actuaklly it
is currently tagged highway=construction, construction=bus_guideway
because it is delayed).
We had a long discussion about this at the time.
This busway is somewhat different from what's been described below
because it is
I know nothing about busways (other than that they're a ridiculous
waste of money, but that's another story!)
RIchard
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Earl wrote:
> The Cambridgeshire busway is tagged highway=bus_guideway (actuaklly it is
> currently tagged highway=construction, constructi
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/howitworks/
On 15/11/2010 17:16, Richard Mann wrote:
I know nothing about busways (other than that they're a ridiculous
waste of money, but that's another story!)
RIchard
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Earl wrote:
The Cambridgeshir
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Earl wrote:
> http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/howitworks/
>
>
>
I think Esperanza is more talking about "bus lane" than such dedicated way
(look the attached picture at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway).
Pieren
> The Cambridgeshire busway is tagged highway=bus_guideway (actuaklly it
> is currently tagged highway=construction, construction=bus_guideway
> because it is delayed).
>
> We had a long discussion about this at the time.
>
> This busway is somewhat different from what's been described below
> beca
On 15/11/2010 20:25, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I think that the psv is wrong as no taxi can use the O-Bahn - it is
equipped with devices to destroy your motor vehicle if you attempt it
Yes, likewise the Cambridgeshire one. They're signed as "car trap",
basically the same idea as the Dutch(?) ca
On 14/11/2010 22:39, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:09 PM, esperanza wrote:
Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv ?)
psv includes taxis; use access=no bus=yes unless taxis are allowed.
The definition of psv will vary by territory. The "legal" ter
Am 15.11.2010 11:39, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
On 2010-11-14 20:30, Ulf Lamping wrote:
landuse=nature_reserve is your own personal concept. Please have a look
at (and make yourself comfortable with) the existing map features before
you discuss here.
Arrogance doesn't bring any respect to you
On 15 November 2010 06:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I'm actually already doing this: landcover=tree. There is already 2545
> entities of them in the db. You could still use a different surface
> there by the way, so it is not superfluous.
> Also landcover=scree, grass, ice, sand
> are good val
2010/11/15 Ulf Lamping :
> as the concept of putting this into leisure, landuse, natural... is simply
> broken.
+1
> The whole "nature_reserve as an area" is broken.
it is clearly an area. What else should it be? All boundaries delimit areas.
cheers,
Martin
__
On 16 November 2010 09:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> The whole "nature_reserve as an area" is broken.
>
> it is clearly an area. What else should it be? All boundaries delimit areas.
I agree, but what does that have to do with surface tagging?
___
2010/11/16 John Smith :
> I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how
> does using landcover make this any better?
I agree that in this case it is the same. For trees it is different.
surface=tree doesn't make any sense. Should we put some landcover
values in surface an
On 16 November 2010 10:03, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/11/16 John Smith :
>> I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how
>> does using landcover make this any better?
>
>
> I agree that in this case it is the same. For trees it is different.
> surface=tree doesn't
2010/11/16 John Smith :
> At the very least surface=* makes a lot more sense than landuse=grass etc...
yes, but it doesn't make more sense then landcover=grass.
surface=industrial doesn't make any sense either ;-)
>> We could reserve surface to roads, squares and paths.
>
> Surface=* started ou
On 16 November 2010 10:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> problem. Anyway, there is a nice proposal for golf courses and surface
> doesn't seem to be in it:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course
Past tagging discussion updated the surface=* tag to do this, eg:
http://w
On 16 November 2010 10:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/11/16 John Smith :
>> At the very least surface=* makes a lot more sense than landuse=grass etc...
>
>
> yes, but it doesn't make more sense then landcover=grass.
> surface=industrial doesn't make any sense either ;-)
Why are you trying
2010/11/16 John Smith :
> On 16 November 2010 10:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2010/11/16 John Smith :
>>> At the very least surface=* makes a lot more sense than landuse=grass etc...
>> yes, but it doesn't make more sense then landcover=grass.
>> surface=industrial doesn't make any sense eith
2010/11/16 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
but it
> doesn't work in all cases and it is not in widespread usage AFAIK, so
> this might be changed IMHO.
I looked this up in Taginfo: from 2,4 Million surface tags there are
under 5000 combinations with leisure (many of which will be
leisure=track), almost eq
Yeah, he's obviously copied a page about bike lanes - there's still a
couple of bike references in places. To me, a busway is a separate
road just for buses (or maybe emergency vehicles as well), anything
that is in a normal street is just a bus lane.
Around here we have bus-ways (dedicated bus
On 16 November 2010 10:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/11/16 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> but it
>> doesn't work in all cases and it is not in widespread usage AFAIK, so
>> this might be changed IMHO.
>
>
> I looked this up in Taginfo: from 2,4 Million surface tags there are
> under 5000 combina
On 16 November 2010 10:46, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/11/16 John Smith :
>> On 16 November 2010 10:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>>> 2010/11/16 John Smith :
At the very least surface=* makes a lot more sense than landuse=grass
etc...
>>> yes, but it doesn't make more sense
2010/11/16 Stephen Hope :
> Yeah, he's obviously copied a page about bike lanes - there's still a
> couple of bike references in places. To me, a busway is a separate
> road just for buses (or maybe emergency vehicles as well), anything
> that is in a normal street is just a bus lane.
>
> Around
On 16 November 2010 11:04, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> How do you define "separate"? Most of the bus lanes here are
> separated, but cars can cross the obstacles if they had to
One bus way in Brisbane is above the rest of the road way...
eg Northern Bus way...
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.45
2010/11/16 John Smith :
> On 16 November 2010 10:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2010/11/16 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
>> but it
>>> doesn't work in all cases and it is not in widespread usage AFAIK, so
>>> this might be changed IMHO.
>>
>>
>> I looked this up in Taginfo: from 2,4 Million surface ta
On 16 November 2010 11:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/11/16 John Smith :
>> On 16 November 2010 10:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>>> 2010/11/16 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
>>> but it
doesn't work in all cases and it is not in widespread usage AFAIK, so
this might be changed IMHO.
> It wouldn't be much use for trying to work out how many golf bunkers
> are tagged natural=beach...
sure, but neither you nor me would do this, true? I know that there is
some painters here, that tag stuff to get the right color in renderer
a or b, but as soon as there is a tag in the wiki that
Am 16.11.2010 00:57, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/15 Ulf Lamping:
as the concept of putting this into leisure, landuse, natural... is simply
broken.
+1
Oh, BTW, as a side-effect, putting this into landcover is *also* broken.
The whole "nature_reserve as an area" is broken.
it is
On 16 November 2010 11:18, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sure, but neither you nor me would do this, true? I know that there is
You missed the point, some people did do this, before extending the
surface=* thread
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@ope
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Am 16.11.2010 00:57, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>> 2010/11/15 Ulf Lamping:
>>> The whole "nature_reserve as an area" is broken.
>>
>> it is clearly an area. What else should it be? All boundaries delimit
>> areas.
>
> Yes, germany is basicall
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> 2010/11/16 John Smith :
>> I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how
>> does using landcover make this any better?
>
>
> I agree that in this case it is the same. For trees it is different.
> surface=tree doesn't make any sense. Should
Am 16.11.2010 02:57, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Am 16.11.2010 00:57, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/15 Ulf Lamping:
The whole "nature_reserve as an area" is broken.
it is clearly an area. What else should it be? All boundaries delimit
Am 16.11.2010 03:49, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
The problem with surface is that it is currently proposed (and used) to
describe two different things:
1) A property of certain object, which can be area, way, node...
2) What is on the surface of certain _area_ of land ("landcover").
Altho
On 16 November 2010 13:48, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> So what is the *exact* problem with surface?
>
> So what is the *exact* advantage of landcover?
I asked several times and I got some vague answers that made reference
to poor grammar, which doesn't seem like a good reason for having a
similar/duplic
On 16 November 2010 11:04, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> How do you define "separate"? Most of the bus lanes here are
> separated, but cars can cross the obstacles if they had to
Separate as in a totally different road, with it's own verges,
bridges, tunnels etc. The buses use these to bypass the
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:52:07 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how
> does using landcover make this any better?
Because, if you'd ever been to PommieLand (UK for the rest of youse)
you would know that beaches aren't all sand.
Some very f
38 matches
Mail list logo
