Re: [Tagging] cycle hierarchy

Hi, i.e. we have http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Class:bicycle It has a -3...3 factor also for different groups of cyclists. Am 02.10.2013, 14:27 Uhr, schrieb bredy : for me is not a good idea, there is just classification about it. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. At a "bicycle forbidden" section cycling is not allowed ever. At a road with a compulsory cycleway, it is allowed to cycle on the road, if the cycleway is not passable, reachabl

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

Am 13.11.2013, 10:28 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : 2013/11/13 Erik Johansson Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. yes, that probably should be done, because there are no other established

Re: [Tagging] country specific scheme - was: Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

Am 15.11.2013, 16:45 Uhr, schrieb Pee Wee : 2013/11/14 Martin Koppenhoefer 2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradi

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

Am 15.11.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb Paul Johnson : On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Masi Master wrote: Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, i

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

I think we don't should tag something at a private (really private) ground in a residential (except the house, entrance and way to it). IMO we don't need any private things like swimmingpools, ways, trees, sandboxes or playgrounds at the backyard in the OSM database. Cheers, Masi Am 05.12.20

Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

Yes, it will be included in the new proposal. PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way: http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662&point=52.509385%2C13.270111&vehicle=BIKE&locale=nl Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik Johansson : I agree with Martin the voting i

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

Am 01.02.2014, 10:05 Uhr, schrieb Pee Wee : 1 Cut the way where the sign is and use a relation type : restriction. 2 Add a node on the way where the sign is and add a motorcar:backward=no to this node. (similar to traffic_sign:forward<

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - rail_trail

Hi, i now startet my proposal for RFC! It's about rail-trails (german: Bahntrassenradweg). This is a disused railway, which converted into a multiuse path, normaly for cycling, inlineskating or hiking. Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rail_trail best regards MasiMa

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - rail_trail

Ok, i agree with most of you! highway=cycleway + railway=abandoned is good. Some people prefer highway=cycleway + railway=dismantled (see: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#Abandoned_railways_where_all_evidence_has_been_removed) So should we change the proposal to these both cas

Re: [Tagging] What is this path surface called?

I would prefer surface=dirt, too. Maybe with smoothness=intermediate (or "bad", if there are more/bigger treeroots). Am 26.02.2012, 19:28 Uhr, schrieb Nathan Edgars II : On 2/26/2012 12:59 PM, Mike Valiant wrote: I think the "tarp" is a horticultural membrane designed to stop weeds growing u

Re: [Tagging] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

For me, it looks like a bicycle-lane. On first look with no sign, so i would tag it cycleway=lane + bicycle=yes (<- no designated or official, because a OSM-cycleway is for me a way, that is "made for cycling" (with no implied access), access can be added with bicycle=*). But on second look

Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts

Am 06.06.2012, 14:07 Uhr, schrieb fly : IMOH the only problem I see is the key highway= . Why not changes this to junction=mini_roundabout and draw a circle with highway=primary/secondary... and add area=yes. A side affect would be that all minis will be rechecked. fly +1, Why use different

Re: [Tagging] "dispute" about how to tag a type=multipolygon relation

Am 07.06.2012, 22:10 Uhr, schrieb Frederik Ramm : Sylvain, I have not followed the discussion but there is no doubt in my mind that: * a multipolygon may have 0 or more inner rings; * a multipolygon must have one or more outer rings; * any inner ring can consist of any number of ways; *

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails

Hi, Some month ago I tried to start a proposal for rail-trails: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rail_trail I startet it with 'rail_trail=yes', but on talk-page some are against this, because highway=cycleway/footway + railway=abandoned are enough. Now it propose only the

Re: [Tagging] Why is this user editing in this manner?

Am 16.08.2012, 02:53 Uhr, schrieb Dave F. : The latest editor has split both the closed way & outer polygon, deleted one of the overlapping ways & added the remaining way to both the outer way & a newly created multi-polygon (2338583) as a substitute for the closed way. Why has the editor

Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc

Hi, for me visitors belongs to customer, and employee belongs to private. I think between designated and official there are different opinions. For now I would say there is no big difference. Both used primary for foot-, cycle- or bridleways. A way with a sign: "Private way, use with own ri

Re: [Tagging] Historic road numbering?

Am 23.09.2012, 21:06 Uhr, schrieb Philip Barnes : Is there a means of tagging the old road numbers for a road that has been declassified? Sometimes you are not in a hurry and just want to go the old way, the way people went before bypasses, motorways and interstates. Something like: highway=se

Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights

Hi! what about this: access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv But what if there is no sidewalk at the street? Or if you ride a horse? Is it explicit forbidden to use the road? This is the reason because I don't like to use the access=* tag. Better is this: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv Masi P.S

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Am 28.01.2013, 17:31 Uhr, schrieb Martin Vonwald (imagic) : Am 28.01.2013 um 17:26 schrieb Tobias Knerr : I'd like to hear your opinions. My opinion is your opinion: if there is no good reason for gigantic areas, don't use them. +1 IMO the riverbank is similar to "landuse, natural or

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Am 01.02.2013, 18:52 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : 2013/2/1 Masi Master : IMO the riverbank is similar to "landuse, natural or landcover" but explicit for rivers. The wiki say the same: Common tagging: type=multipolygon + waterway=riverbank + name=* + ... New tag

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)

Am 18.04.2013, 17:22 Uhr, schrieb Steve Bennett :On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:33 AM, André Pirard wrote: From OSM-talk-be, with best regards.  I put the questions before the replies ;-)

Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?

Hi,some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot & bicycle are allowed". But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a "bicycle free" sign. Same with other signs. So if we

Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?

Am 10.07.2013, 20:43 Uhr, schrieb SomeoneElse : Masi Master wrote: Hi, some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot & bicycle are allowed". But I think this is not good! It is bette

Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?

. Eldredge :Wouldn't bicycle-free mean an absence of bicycles, in other words bicycle=no? Masi Master wrote: Hi,some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot & bicycle are allowed". But I

Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?

Am 11.07.2013, 04:42 Uhr, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann : On 10.07.2013 18:39, Masi Master wrote: some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot & bicycle are allowed". But I think this is not

Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags

Am 11.07.2013, 16:06 Uhr, schrieb fly : Am 10.07.2013 20:34, schrieb doug brown: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? I stopped using *ways

Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags

Am 11.07.2013, 23:26 Uhr, schrieb fly : Am 11.07.2013 23:02, schrieb fly: Am 11.07.2013 22:55, schrieb Masi Master: Am 11.07.2013, 16:06 Uhr, schrieb fly : Am 10.07.2013 20:34, schrieb doug brown: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name

Am 12.08.2013, 21:55 Uhr, schrieb Yuri D'Elia : On 08/08/2013 11:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region, region:type=valley? I'd use type=multipolygon natural=

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name

Am 17.08.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb fly : On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: The problem is, that multipolygon don't work in 2 cases: - The areas touch each other. - The "areas" are multipolygons. A multipolygon as a member in a other multipolygon is not allowed. Either we a