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

2013-11-13 Thread Erik Johansson
Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. But if you are saying that there are roads marked with bicycle=no which really do not have such a sign, then that's different. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM, P

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

2013-11-13 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 12 November 2013 18:16, Pee Wee wrote: > 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 you are

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

2013-11-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/11/13 Erik Johansson > Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with > bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. > yes, that probably should be done, because there are no other established ways of doing it, beside the wrong bicycle=no on the

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

2013-11-13 Thread Colin Smale
There are very many roads (in NL at least) marked with bicycle=no with no explicit sign. It is implicit in the fact that a "parallel" cycle track is marked as "compulsory" (blue round sign). IMHO the definition of this sign (in law) is totally screwed. It is also used for cycle tracks which are

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

2013-11-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/11/13 Colin Smale > The law in NL says that "cycles" wider than 75cm are not bound by the > "obligation" to follow the "mandatory cycle track" and are allowed on the > main carriageway; this includes trikes and some trailers (e.g. for carrying > windsurfers). So why not tag the main road to

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

2013-11-13 Thread Philip Barnes
In the UK there is no obligation to use a parallel cycleway, in fact I know if roads with both parallel cycleways and cyclelanes. Cycleways tend to force the cyclist to give way at ever road junction, whereas a cyclist using the road has right of way, and this is obviously preferred by many cyc

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

2013-11-13 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks all for your comments. I understand most of the comments made here. Most of them were discussed on the German forum(in English) and the Dutch forum (in Dutch). I should have directe

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

2013-11-13 Thread Masi Master
Am 13.11.2013, 10:28 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : 2013/11/13 Erik Johansson Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. yes, that probably should be done, because there are no other established

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

2013-11-13 Thread Matthijs Melissen
On 13 November 2013 09:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > Secondly, you mention the case of special types of bicycle eg > tricycles. I would argue that if such vehicles routinely have a > different legal status with respect to access rights in a particular > country, then they should be giv

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

2013-11-13 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 13 November 2013 23:06, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > In the Netherlands, segways, rollerblades, and skateboards are allowed > on bike paths. In Austria, segways and rollerblades are allowed on > bike paths, but skateboards are not. In Germany, segways are allowed > on bike paths, but rollerblades

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

2013-11-13 Thread Matthijs Melissen
On 13 November 2013 23:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On 13 November 2013 23:06, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > In which case,I don't think the already well-established access tags > are what you should be using for this. bicycle=no means "you can't > ride a bicycle along here", not "ther

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling

2013-11-13 Thread Matthijs Melissen
On 11 November 2013 18:02, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, fly wrote: >> What I miss so far is a way to better describe what kind of gambling is >> possible, no weather what kind of place it is, similar to gambling=* >> >> Do we need a tag for each machines ? >> How do I