2014-03-23 2:37 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge :
> Left-hand-driver cars are sometimes used in right-hand-drive countries,
> and vice versa. So, changing cars at a national border where the driving
> conventions differ is not mandatory in all cases. In fact, I have not
> heard of any cases where it
> I think having only one value (driving_side=opposite (or inverted)) would be
> better to tag highways.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 22/03/2014 14:24, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> I agree: let's leave it as-is but add the possibility of using it on ways to
> mark exceptions
Of course no ordinary car is going to use those tracks. Keep in main the
track definition:
"Roads for agricultural use, forest tracks etc."
Cars are not agricultural vehicles and they should not be used as a
reference when we are talking about tracks. By agricultural vehicles, the
main and almost
None of those tracks should be used for tracking, they are not meant for
cars. Most of the time they will end in someone's land/property anyways.
2014-03-21 1:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :
> But at least now I know I need to review my values more
> pessimistically. (Which is what I wanted afte
I agree we should find a tag to note "practicability". Tracktype would be
great, but actual grades are only applicable when there terrain is mostly
earth and no rocks. That's the reason I put those pics. Hard surface does
not mean anything about "how good" a track is to use vehicles in, and
surface
If it's someone's property, it should have an access=private tag. Some
owners may allow passage (access=permissive), in which case tracks
would be routable and likely interesting shortcuts. The routing app
needs to decide whether the shortcut is worth the trouble.
Besides, tracktype can be used on
On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 20:55 +0100, vali wrote:
> I agree we should find a tag to note "practicability".
In an ideal world Vali, I'd agree. But we do need to think about all the
roads already in the database. I'd prefer to extend and encourage
greater use of an existing, well used tag if possible.
Hi All,
I have some winter gritting/salting routes that I am trying to work out how
best to tag them. I was thinking of creating a route relation, but I may
need to add some new roles:
* "forward:grit" implies the gritting truck grits this road whilst
travelling in the direction of the way.
* "fo
In fact if I'm going to allow roads to appear twice in the relation then I
can just build a continous route with no gaps and do away with the forward:
and backward: bits altogether (just keeping 'grit' and 'travel' as my two
roles).
Rob
On 23 Mar 2014 22:07, "Rob Nickerson" wrote:
Hi All,
I ha
Hi Rob,
it's only a warning of josm. Read it as: "Hey, you made something which
may be an error. Are you sure it's what you wanted to do?" and if you
answer this question with yes, ignore it
On the other hand:
What's the benefit of having gritting routes in osm? are they stable?
Are they followed
Thanks,
Happy to ignore JOSMs error, but don't want to have someone else change my
route relation if it flags as a QA bug (hence posting here to gather
people's thoughts & ideas).
They're as stable as bus routes in my area as the local authority has to
ensure the correct roads are gritted and the
11 matches
Mail list logo
