Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Oh well, the yearly path discussion is here again. On Thu Greg Troxel wrote: > as vehicle types default to no on all of these), but it will not > physically fit. If it did fit, the way should be tagged as a track. Most of the time "track" is not a relevant value: a track can not be too narro

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 06.08.2015 um 09:06 schrieb Lauri Kytömaa : > > . Most sidewalks don't have any > traffic signs, but they are footways whether they are footways in osm is somehow disputed I believe. They are not independent ways on their own but rather similar to lanes (mostly). >

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 06.08.2015 um 09:06 schrieb Lauri Kytömaa : > > highway=cycleway: physically good for cycling and walking, > cycling legal, walking allowed if in country defaults or tagged. I believe you can't imply physical characteristics here, the class is about legal access ("desi

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 06.08.2015 um 03:50 schrieb johnw : > > If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns, > lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with > foot access =yes > > I would never consider tagging that as =path with

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On 06/08/2015 09:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 06.08.2015 um 03:50 schrieb johnw : If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns, lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with foot access =yes I would never consider tagging that

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > is it a "highway"? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the > meaning(s) of the words in natural language. When we have footway, cycleway, bridleway, steps, track, and via_ferrata, again, why is

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On 06/08/2015 10:24, John Willis wrote: On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: is it a "highway"? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the meaning(s) of the words in natural language. When we have footway, cycleway, bridleway, steps, track, and via_ferrata, again,

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 06.08.2015 um 11:24 schrieb John Willis : > > >> On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >> is it a "highway"? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the >> meaning(s) of the words in natural language. > > When we have footway, cyclewa

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend : > > Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than > "yes" - how would you tag that? bicycle=permissive cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 11:24 GMT+02:00 John Willis : > So far in the replies, Ive read a sidewalk isn't a footway (its lanes on a road [no]) and a track in a wilderness park isn't a track (its a path [uhh, no]) > > Not being able to define sidewalks separately nor separate tracks from trails means all of the

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend : Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than "yes" - how would you tag that? bicycle=permissive How would anyone know that this "highway=path" was actually, physically

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 6, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Ruben Maes wrote: > > --+-- highway=footway footway=sidewalk > | > ==x== highway=residential > | > highway=footway > footway=crossing > > And the x gets highway=crossing of course. +1 That is how I d

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

> Am 06.08.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Andy Townsend : > >> On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend : >> >> Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than >> "yes" - how would you tag that? >> >> bicycle=permissiv

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone Am 06.08.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Andy Townsend : >> Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than >> "yes" - how would you tag that? >> >> bicycle=permissive > > How would anyone know that this "highway=path" was actually, physically, a > cycleway?

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Andy Townsend writes: > On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend : >> >> Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than >> "yes" - how would you tag that? >> >> bicycle=permissive > > How would anyone know that

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Lauri Kytömaa writes: > Oh well, the yearly path discussion is here again. > > On Thu Greg Troxel wrote: >> as vehicle types default to no on all of these), but it will not >> physically fit. If it did fit, the way should be tagged as a track. > > Most of the time "track" is not a relevant

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On 06/08/2015 12:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: a cycleway is nothing "physical", it is a legal setting. Or what do you mean with "physically"? ... since we seem to have dipped into "highway=path" again :) The English word "cycleway" refers to a physical object - which archetype is this-th

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Much more elquently than me, Richard Fairhurst has explained the problem > previously in opinion pieces such as > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging > I would like that post

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone Am 06.08.2015 um 15:22 schrieb johnw : >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging > > > I would like that post burned onto the surface of the moon with a laser, so > we can see it hanging ver our heads every night as we map and think of > tagging schemes. you me

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > If all mappers just map cycleways and don't care for access restrictions for > pedestrians we end up with the same tags meaning different things. That is very true - which means that assumptions based on cou

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 06.08.2015 um 17:03 schrieb John Willis : > > Just as we have a variance as to what is a "primary road" in a third world vs > first world nation, we can still have a consistent regional meaning to what > is a "primary" road. The same could be said of cycleway or footway

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

dieterdreist wrote > While duck tagging works very good within the same culture and region, it > bears at the same time the risk that mappers in different regions have > different assumptions of what is implied by certain words. +1 On first sight, descriptive keys like footway or cycleway seem

Re: [Tagging] Tagging depots without introducing yet another landuse value

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:41:43 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 03.08.2015 um 14:15 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny > > : > > > > I created > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/*%3Ddepot > > intended as alternative to landuse=depot that I consider a

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:45:10 -0400 Greg Troxel wrote: > I agree that's a mess. I think the biggest issue is that path and > footway render very differently, e.g. > >highway=path foot=designated bicycle=yes (== highway=footway, > with bikes allowed)) > > is almost the same as > > highw

Re: [Tagging] Contact:* prefix

On 04/08/2015 14:07, Michał Brzozowski wrote: This means just not to add contact details of private persons like me or you. OK, but it needs to be amended because that's not what it says As per contact: prefix, opponents argue it's redundant. Isn't so addr: as well? In reality keys with and w

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > > >> Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that > >> overlap? > > > > because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway =cycleway > > > > path with horse=designated is the same as highway

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Ilpo Järvinen writes: > You seem to admit that there's need for some hierarchy, however, on the > same time you seem to oppose the idea that such hierarcy would exists > based on physical properties (man-made vs informal). I find it strange > since it shouldn't be that hard to come up use cas

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Ilpo Järvinen writes: > > > You seem to admit that there's need for some hierarchy, however, on the > > same time you seem to oppose the idea that such hierarcy would exists > > based on physical properties (man-made vs informal). I find it strange

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Ilpo Järvinen writes: > It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of > "not paved trails through forest". Those which come with man applied > surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically > surface=fine_gravel to be more precise), which tends to be r

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

I know its long, but hear me out. Im not as good as the other poster... > On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > Now the actual physical appearance will vary a lot between primaries > according to the context, true, This is what we are referencing - some ways follow l

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Greg Troxel wrote > Ilpo Järvinen < > ilpo.jarvinen@ > > writes: > >> It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds >> of >> "not paved trails through forest". Those which come with man applied >> surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically >> surface=