Hi!
2014-11-03 18:47 GMT+01:00 Hubert :
> But the question is, whether we should abandon cycleway=* tagging on the
> main road in favor for, let us say, cycleway:lanes=, or do we allow lane
> tagging in addition to the well established cycleway=* scheme.
>
As I wrote the :lanes proposal I'm obvio
One of the most important differences is that for highway=footway, we
know that pedestrians are allowed (unless other tags alter the access
explicitly). With highway=path we can't always assume that pedestrians
are allowed along it. I know there are routing systems that care about
this difference.
Hi -
I don't have a direct answer I'm afraid. But please try not to think
about "what gets rendered" - the default style shown on the osm.org
homepage is just one of hundreds of rendering styles that are used. If
there are existing tags in use, great, whether or not they show on the
osm.org render
>-Original Message-
>From: Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com]
>Sent: martedì 4 novembre 2014 04:35
>To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Pathways with steep vertical slopes, accessed via
>climbing chains
>
>Is this the type of thing you are talking
2014-11-04 10:18 GMT+01:00 Alberto Nogaro :
> >Is this the type of thing you are talking about:
> >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata
>
> Depending on the length of the assisted section, you might also consider
> this:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Safety_mea
2014-11-03 23:38 GMT+01:00 Mike Thompson :
> Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged
> "highway=footway" although most of them are open equally to foot
> traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them as "footways"?
>
You can (IMHO) change them to path.
To give some historical back
2014-11-03 20:13 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
> What about landuse=civil ?
>
> Oxford defines as attribute "of or relating to ordinary citizens and their
> concerns,
> as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters", and
> in law as "relating to private relations between members of a community;
>
Interesting interpretation of history. Slightly different version:
The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.
In practice, this use is fairly limite
2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann :
> The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
> highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
> mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.
>
the guy who proposed the tag path is a passionate hors
In a national park, I would prefer highway=footway for the built-up
and paved ways, e.g. close to the visitor centre, that are often
prepared for wheelchair=yes and attract people for a Sunday stroll.
Any longer, more natural paths for longer hiking I'd tag as
highway=path with tagging as Dan poin
2014-11-04 11:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann >:
>
>> The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
>> highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
>> mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.
(hawke = snowmobile enthusiast, or at least that's the impression he gave,
for anyone coming late to this debate)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2014-11-04 11:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann <
>> richard.mann.westox
On 11/4/14 5:33 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
A tag is not useless just because one particular renderer does not
evaluate it. There might be other renderer and data consumer that
are interested in this tag.
+1
we are not tagging for one specific renderer, we are tagging for the
potential suite of data
Thanks Alberto, Mike & Martin for the suggestions. I was a avid hiker in the
US, but this was the first time for me to encounter such assistance devices
myself. never knew their collective name until now.
Dan - I understand about “tagging for the renderer” , but what you personally
consider
Mike Thompson wrote:
> I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first
> hand knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been
> tagged "highway=footway" although most of them are open
> equally to foot traffic and horse traffic.
This is pretty much the canonical definition
Hi,
following some discussions on github (1) and talk-at (2) I have tried
to clarify the definition of natural=ridge in the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dridge&diff=1104725&oldid=998905
Not sure if this is good enough, personaly I would prefer a single ridg
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:28 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann
> :
> The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
> highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted
> something less mode-specific than high
I think that natural=arete should be rather subtag of natural=ridge
(natural=ridge; ridge=arete).
It is opening way for next specialized tags - what will make using data
significantly harder.
2014-11-04 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> Hi,
>
> following some discussions on github (1) and talk-at (2
2014-11-04 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> personaly I would prefer a single ridge
> key with additional subkeys denoting properties such as gentle,sharp, cliff
> ridges.
>
+1
or the subkey variant Mateusz has offered.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailin
In Germany, highway=bridleway was interpreted as horses *only*. It's the
same issue as for bikes.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:28 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann
> > :
> > The path tag wa
2014-11-04 14:01 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes :
> Surely highway=bridleway has been around forever? It was certainly there
> when I started editing in 2007.
>
surely this was there, but the German sign for a bridleway excludes
pedestrians and bicycles and is rarely found in the real life, while ways
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-11-04 14:30:
2014-11-04 14:01 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>>:
Surely highway=bridleway has been around forever? It was certainly there
when I started editing in 2007.
surely this was there, but the German sign for a bridleway exc
Thanks for everyone's comments.
Based upon the information you have provided I believe these trails
best fit "highway=path" as long as the appropriate access tags are
added. I will also use "informal=yes" when appropriate as well as
indicate surface type and smoothness.
For those few cases where
Am 03.11.2014 um 23:38 schrieb Mike Thompson:
> I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first hand
> knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged
> "highway=footway" although most of them are open equally to foot
> traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them
Hm hm, somebody could not wait to start the page ;-)
I went through the mail thread so far, and tried to populate the
Talk page with some of the arguments, please add if I missed a point.
Maybe Martin could add some arguments why =public_administration
should be preferred?
tom
Martin Koppenhoefe
Hi!
I consider footway to be exclusively for pedestrians.
If you apply the stricter german interpretation, then footway is for
pedestrians. Period.
If you apply the hierarchical english interpretation then footway is still
for pedestrians exclusively (while bicycle includes pedestrians and
bridl
Hey,
On Di 04.11.2014 16:42 Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Ich hatte mal überlegt ob man das durch eine relation lösen könnte.
>
> D.h. alle Signale die zu einer Kreuzung und einer Steuerung unterliegen zu
einer Relation
> zusammenfassen. Damit wäre die zuordnung zu einer Kreuzung gegeben. Dann
gäbe e
Hallo,
Di 04.11.2014 09:03 Martin Vonwald :
> On the other hand, if we are looking at junctions with multiple (turning)
lanes and multiple
> cycle lanes, then we should use the :lanes tagging in addition(!) to the
good old cycleway
> tagging.
+1. That seem a like good solution. But it still do
Sorry, wrong address.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hubert [mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de]
> Sent: Dienstag, 4. November 2014 18:32
> To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-de] Tag:highway=traffic_signals / wiki
> page inkonsistnet
>
> Hey,
>
>
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:54:46PM +0900, johnw wrote:
> Thanks Alberto, Mike & Martin for the suggestions. I was a avid hiker in the
> US, but this was the first time for me to encounter such assistance devices
> myself. never knew their collective name until now.
>
>
> Dan - I understand ab
On 04.11.2014 14:04, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I think that natural=arete should be rather subtag of natural=ridge
> (natural=ridge; ridge=arete).
This discussion comes late. Both natural=ridge and natural=arete have been
approved by voting just 2 years ago. And I think that there's nothing wrong
On 5/11/2014 12:59 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 14:58:39 +0100
From: Tom Pfeifer
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: [Tagging] bridleways / Re: path vs footway
Message-ID: <5458db8f.5070...@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/p
On 29.10.2014 13:08, Pieren wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>
>> (...) But when we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the
>> database.
>
> But it's a common practice today in OSM. It seems you missed the long
> discussions about "noname=yes" or
On 11/4/14 5:19 PM, Warin wrote:
I've not seen any rendering specfically for horses. Here in Australia
there are a number of horse trails .. one over 5,000km long. Not
enough demand for horse maps thus no rendering?
there are limits to what you're going to see in the standard
mapnik style on
On 4 November 2014 22:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've not seen any rendering specfically for horses.
http://www.wanderreitkarte.de/ is targeted towards horse riders (and hikers).
-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetm
To me, "Civic" is short for "Civic Services". Maybe I should make that clear. I
updated the RFC page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civic
: of or relating to a city or town or the people who live there
: relating to
On 5 November 2014 00:23, johnw wrote:
> Business-government-citizen-military-religion-farm-park. There's some mixing
> between them, but those are the big developed-land landuses ones to me.
> Civic covers the missing hole pretty well. The last missing hole.
I agree that a tag that covers this w
To me, governmental is more legislative. Civic implies for the citizens.
Perhaps it's just a style choice, but it's my preference, and goes well with
the existing approved building=civic.
I've been throwing out civic for a bit, but if it was approved "governmental"
it's wouldn't matter too to
Thanks tom. ^_^ I was so surprised to see the info in the talk page. When we
first talked about landuse=civic a few months ago, I wanted to make an RFC
page, but, honestly, the guidelines didn't really show me how to actually _make
the page_ , and while I'm really good with a screwdriver or phot
"Whether to use subtags is mainly a matter of taste."
No. Lets say that there is something with four main values that are
noticeable for general public and several subtypes, important for
specialists.
For data consumers interested in just four values version with subtags
is vastly easier to use c
40 matches
Mail list logo
