On 27.03.2019 07:37, Warin wrote:
[...]
I'd still call it a 'mounting block' ... no steps in the name so it
can be a ramp or, in your case, a platform. Add wheelchair=yes and a
description=* tag ???
+1, in wikipedia it's also called 'mounting block', see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountin
Hello,
I find it strange to use highway=service without being able to add a
service=* to specify the type of service way, but that's how most BRTs
[1] are currently mapped, for example, TransJakarta, Bogota's
TransMilenio, and the Metrobus systems of Mexicy City and Buenos
Aires.
I've seen servic
Hi all,
Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715
https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254&lon=-0.0335&zoom=17
You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to me,
it's full of 45-degree bends". And based o
Hi Richard
I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road itself.
I don't see the namespacing as an issue here.
The rule of thumb I (we?) use to decide whether a cycleway shall better be
tagged as a separate way is to look if the cycleway is segregated from the road
by
My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and
figured it is best to establish a tagging for them as they're growing in
popularity:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/inflatable_park
I feel like this is a relatively self explanatory proposal and hopefully
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:18:52AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > I fear confusion if it uses exactly the same tag. But maybe it could work.
> Open for any thoughts or suggestions of a better word!
The only term that crossed my mind was specialisation but that
doesn't really fit
Mar 27, 2019, 11:29 AM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
> Hello,
>
> I find it strange to use highway=service without being able to add a
> service=* to specify the type of service way, but that's how most BRTs
> [1] are currently mapped, for example, TransJakarta, Bogota's
> TransMilenio, and th
Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem:
cycleway:left=track
cycleway:left:width=3
cycleway:left:surface=asphalt
...
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 12:01 Tobias Zwick, wrote:
> Hi Richard
>
> I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road
> itself. I don't see the
Am Mi., 27. März 2019 um 12:24 Uhr schrieb Silent Spike <
silentspike...@gmail.com>:
> My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and
> figured it is best to establish a tagging for them as they're growing in
> popularity:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feat
Am Mi., 27. März 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :
> Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem:
> cycleway:left=track
> cycleway:left:width=3
> cycleway:left:surface=asphalt
> ...
>
if the cycleway is a track it can become a problem, because tracks tend to
have different
Le 27.03.19 à 12:30, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Mar 27, 2019, 11:29 AM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>> service=bus is much more common, but the wiki discourages its use [2]
>> since 2017, although I could not find any discussion supporting this
>> change.
>
> Given that warning wa
Can you link or upload some images? Preferably from/to Wikimedia Commons?
It sounds like sub type of a playground.
Mar 27, 2019, 12:21 PM by silentspike...@gmail.com:
> My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and figured
> it is best to establish a tagging for them as t
I couldn't find any good images of the facilities I'm talking about on
commons, but they're definitely different from the kind of individual
slides/castles described by Martin.
See the likes of https://airparx.com and
https://www.airspacesolutions.com/airx-inflatable-theme-parks who design
these c
Is something like
leisure=playground
fee=yes
playground=inflatable_park
fitting?
It would allow to both tag detail and do not require special support to process
it
and seems correct to me.
Mar 27, 2019, 2:00 PM by silentspike...@gmail.com:
> I couldn't find any good images of the facilities I
> This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry.
> [...] Breaking geometry to enable tagging is bad in itself, misleading on
> renderings, and unsurprisingly confuses the heck out of routers.
Indeed. Either as cycleway=track/lane on car road (all along) or as a
separate way
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 16:14 althio, wrote:
> Route relation membership cannot be clearly and separately applied
> with namespacing, it requires a separate objet [1].
>
I do not see any problem with that. I have been including roads with
cycleway=lane routinely in bicycle routes.
>
>
> ... or ...
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:32 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> service=busway/bus seems OK to me (note, I am not a native speaker),
> but I am not convinced that it would be very useful.
Perhaps we should recommend service=bus because it is already
documented and more common, service=busway is neithe
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 9:03 AM marc marc wrote:
> I agree. in addition, the description is very strange.
> "Dedicated bus service lane or road <...>"
> a road with several lanes must not be splitted in several one-lane-way.
> so this tag mix access and lane description.
That is correct. I suppos
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:32, ael via Tagging
wrote:
>
> The only term that crossed my mind was specialisation but that
> doesn't really fit.
Good thought, but I'd agree no, not quite right.
> I invented the shop=trade after a suggestion on this list to consider
> subtags.
I was thinking ab
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:29:30 -0300
From: Fernando Trebien
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: [Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs
no service tag
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hello,
I find it str
20 matches
Mail list logo
