Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> I took the liberty of revising the English translation in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Values to something
> that I hope will be more helpful to English speakers.
Overall, this seems like an improvement to me.
However, I note that the translation on
On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM
style
that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways
properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the
style more than an indictment
Please come back to my original question: *I would like to eliminate the
contradiction in the wiki. What wording do you propose?*
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JO
sent from a phone
> On 24. May 2020, at 23:43, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> plenty of ways that look from the layout like combined foot-cycle paths but
> have no signage at all
> plenty of service roads which show the "no transit for any vehicle" sign, but
> in reality you can happily pass wit
sent from a phone
> On 25. May 2020, at 20:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> i'd expect OSM
> offering me a conflict free (in legal and physical terms) route based
> on the tags it finds.
>
> This is especially true for transit e.g. traversing something. This is
> pretty inline with my in-car-nav
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 17:28, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Kevin Kenny wrote:
> >
> > I took the liberty of revising the English translation in
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Values to something
> > that I hope will be more helpful to English speakers.
>
> Overall, this seems
We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting
...
I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is
lost?)
To me a highway=path is a concept that is well defined in the wiki, and the
various types can be described with existing tags.
A hiking rou
Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> That said, my favourite solution here would indeed be to add a new
> main tag highway=trail and slowly retag the existing mountain
> paths starting with the most dangerous/abused ones.
Fully agree with this, other than the slight detail that =trail is the wrong
value.
In
26 maj 2020 kl. 11:33 skrev Volker Schmidt :
>
> We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting ...
> I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is
> lost?)
> To me a highway=path is a concept that is well defined in the wiki, and the
> var
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 19:35, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting
> ...
> I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is
> lost?)
>
To me a highway=path is a concept that is well defined in the wiki, and the
Richard Fairhurst:
> highway=mountain_path works for me for tagging mountain paths.
>
Along that line, to retag all the unpaved highway=path's in Nederland with
something more specific, we would need at least forest_path, dune_path,
heath_path, grass_quai and peat_path.
highway=path in Nederland
May 26, 2020, 12:52 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> 26 maj 2020 kl. 11:33 skrev Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> >:
>
>>
>> We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting
>> ...
>> I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is
>> los
Based on my experience it is usually better to write something, even not ideal
and
ask for a review.
"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.
May 26, 2020, 10:58 by vosc...@gmail.com:
> Please come back to my original question: > I would like to eliminate the
> contradiction in t
May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de:
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> May 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de:
>>
>>>
>>> [access=private driveways implicitly permitting delivieries to destination?]
>>>
>>> Not all deliveries are actively requested, and the delivery person can't
>>> kn
As an example, I have redundantly tagged the sections of a hiking route
with from, to and section_ref. The names still contain the same information.
name=parent route name - leg - from-to
*Parent route: *
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2991780&map=10!52.5245!5.6135
*Section route:*
Am 25.05.2020 um 01:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging:
> ..
> (1) there is some seemingly good overcomplicated tagging
access=yes
> (2) there is a good and simpler replacement
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://l
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:22 AM Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style
>> that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways
>> properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's pr
Since the name effects how the tag is used, the name is not irrelevant
On 5/26/20 4:57 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Exactly the name of any tag in OSM is completely irrelevant, it's as
you say how it's used and documented which matters. The iD editor
chooses to localise and abstract away the actu
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:59 AM Andrew Harvey wrote:
> From what I can tell, the ask is a tag for a specific type of way which the
> person needs experience or preparedness before undertaking. But I'm lost and
> still not completely understanding what exactly this new tag would cover
> exactly
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:10:17AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 25. May 2020, at 20:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >
> > i'd expect OSM
> > offering me a conflict free (in legal and physical terms) route based
> > on the tags it finds.
> >
> > This is especi
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 6:43 PM Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I would like to bring this up in the list.
> I am not happy with the recent change of the key:access page of the wiki
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Key:access has been changed on 24 May 2020
> by F
May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
> (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount).
> Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/private.
>
bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle
bicycle=
May 26, 2020, 17:20 by f...@zz.de:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:10:17AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 25. May 2020, at 20:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> >
>> > i'd expect OSM
>> > offering me a conflict free (in legal and physical terms) route based
>
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
> > (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount).
> > Bikes are only completely forbidden i
May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>>
>> > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
>> > (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismou
I would think that oneway=yes or oneway=-1 was required on motorways in
order to identify the direction of one-way travel. For roundabouts, it
must be easier provided data consumers know the national rules.
Steve
On 24/05/2020 21:26, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I just noticed an apparent contradicti
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Steve Doerr
wrote:
> I would think that oneway=yes or oneway=-1 was required on motorways in
> order to identify the direction of one-way travel. For roundabouts, it must
> be easier provided data consumers know the national rules.
>
Seems pretty easy to tag it an
On 5/26/20 8:26 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:59 AM Andrew Harvey wrote:
From what I can tell, the ask is a tag for a specific type of way which the
person needs experience or preparedness before undertaking. But I'm lost and
still not completely understanding what exactl
May 26, 2020, 20:50 by bradha...@fastmail.com:
> Yes! We have an overload of tags for trails, many poorly defined, many
> rarely used. KISS - keep it simple stupid. I think it would help if we
> narrowed the focus for cycleway and footway.
> How about this, as default:
> cycleway - paved
Am Di., 26. Mai 2020 um 18:48 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
> (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount).
> Bikes are only compl
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 04:54, brad wrote:
>
> How about this, as default:
> cycleway - paved path that a typical tourist or casual rider can ride on a
> road bike.
> footway - smooth path, very firm surface or paved that is good for someone
> with less than average ability.
> bridleway- for exclu
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
> (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount).
> Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/pri
May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
>> (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=d
May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>> bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents
>>
>
> How can you conclude that?
>
There are many places that require people to dismount from bicycles and
> On May 26, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> May 26, 2020, 20:50 by bradha...@fastmail.com:
> Yes! We have an overload of tags for trails, many poorly defined, many
> rarely used. KISS - keep it simple stupid. I think it would help if we
> narrowed the focu
On 26/5/20 9:49 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
Richard Fairhurst:
highway=mountain_path works for me for tagging mountain paths.
Along that line, to retag all the unpaved highway=path's in Nederland
with something more specific, we would need at least forest_path,
dune_path, heath_path, gras
Le 27 mai 2020 06:27:42 GMT+02:00, Tod Fitch a écrit :
>
>
>> On May 26, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>For me footway [1] and path [2] are distinctly different. The photos
>are from a blog post of mine regarding rendering of trail distances
>[3].
>
>Cheers!
>Tod
>
>[1
> 27 maj 2020 kl. 06:54 skrev Yves :
> […]
> I'm as fool as you, and always mapped the paved, urban-style as
> highway=footway and the ones in the wilderness as highway =path.
>
So have I, and so have, as far as I can tell from the areas I am familiar with,
most mappers in Sweden.
Not all of
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de:
>> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery
>>> services?
>>> My uncle has farm, with clearly private yard (it is unsigned).
>>>
>>> Postman or
On 2020-05-26 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
>> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
>> (bicyc
40 matches
Mail list logo
