[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Pee Wee
Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll say a few words about this new tag. The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Matthijs Melissen
I support the idea in principle. However, would it be possible to propose a tag that is backwards compatible with the current scheme, and does not break existing renders / routers? For example, something like bicycle=no, bicycle:use_cycleway=yes? -- Matthijs On 12 November 2013 18:16, Pee Wee wr

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Dave F.
Pee Wee A couple of questions. How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no? How does your proposal distinguish the exceptions to the rule that you gave as an example below? Cheers Dave F. On 12/11/2013 18:16, Pee Wee wrote: Legallythese 2 roads are not the same. For exampl

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Pee Wee
2013/11/12 Dave F. > Pee Wee > > A couple of questions. > > How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no? > For an ordinary bike I do not think that routing will differ from the situation where we would tag all these type 2 way's with a "bicycle-no" . The problem is that there are

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Pee Wee
2013/11/12 Matthijs Melissen > I support the idea in principle. However, would it be possible to > propose a tag that is backwards compatible with the current scheme, > and does not break existing renders / routers? For example, something > like bicycle=no, bicycle:use_cycleway=yes? > > -- Matthi

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Matthijs Melissen
On 12 November 2013 19:04, Pee Wee wrote: > If I understand correctly you're saying that the combination of a > "bicycle=no" & "bicycle:use_cycleway=yes" could mean the same thing as the > proposed tag. Exactly. > I think it could but I'm not realy in favour of this. The main > reason is that I

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Masi Master
Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. At a "bicycle forbidden" section cycling is not allowed ever. At a road with a compulsory cycleway, it is allowed to cycle on the road, if the cycleway is not passable, reachabl

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Georg Feddern
Even I am not Pee Wee nor any author of the proposal, but Am 12.11.2013 19:29, schrieb Dave F.: How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no? How does your proposal distinguish the exceptions to the rule that you gave as an example below? consider a muscular trike, which is c