I use frequency=6 for 6 buses per hour as a tag on a bus route relation.
And journeys=3 for 3 services a day.
Interpreting such tags is always likely to be context-sensitive
Richard
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I'd like to tag approximate ferry frequency in OSM
Yes, that is how I use it - frequency if there's 1/hour or better, journeys
if it's less than that.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:35 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> Richard Mann wrote:
>>
>> I use frequency=6 for 6 buses per hour as a tag on a bus route relation.
>>
Ah, do you mean the signalling headway, or the planning headway or the
operating headway?
:o)
service_interval=nnn would probably be more en-gb
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> Tilo wrote:
>
>> what about the headway tag?
>>
>>
> Perhaps a tag that's actually used by normal
Jonathan, I think you are saying that foot=yes+bicycle=no covers it. It
doesn't because bicycle=dismount is typically advisory, and considerably
less strong than bicycle=no. Usually it means that a pedestrian might take
umbrage, but the authorities aren't interested in making it an offence.
On Fr
bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Gower <
socks-openstreetmap@earth.li> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> wrote:
> >
> > and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an a
> There are only some singular situations where "pushing bicycles as an
object" is not allowed.
> In this situations I am always puzzled, what I have to fear, if I would
carry the bicycle like a suitcase or parcel/packet ...
> none I suppose, but I never was in such situation yet.
>
> Georg
Nothing
Ah, but in England we have some Streams that are bigger than Rivers.
Stream is sometimes used when a river divides into a number of channels,
and some Rivers retain that name even in their upper reaches when they are
pretty small (and easily jumpable). So you can't always rely on the name.
On Sa
I've pondered this without conclusion, yet.
Unfortunately it's a bit complicated, since length and width of vehicle,
width of barrier and width of path all come into play.
You could probably calculate it for "standard" bikes by drawing a ?0.7m
straight path through the barrier and then calculatin
0.7m is the width of the path (typical handlebars plus a bit)
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Richard Mann <
> richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You could probably calculate it for "stand
We have lots of "false" one-way streets in Oxford. We tag a short section
with oneway=yes+oneway:bicycle=no.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a
range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually
do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river,
obviously.
I don't know why the wiki has a statement against it - it always see
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> > Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you
> > tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering
> > order of highways, leading to this:
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009
> good point
"left luggage" for the facility as a whole, probably "locker" for them
individually
it might be more "international" to call them "lockers", though
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> over a year ago I was indoor-mapping the central train station of
> Heilbronn,
te:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Am 24.06.2014 19:41, schrieb Richard Mann:
> > "left luggage" for the facility as a whole, probably "locker" for them
> > individually
> >
> > it might be more "international" to call them "lockers", though
>
&
I did manage to do it (reasonably accurately) by algorithm for the UK, but
it was a bit of a pain.
Adding dual_carriageway=yes tags, particularly in urban areas, wouldn't
hurt.
Richard
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> I am thinking about marking tagging roads with
I think I just ignored very short links, so I don't think it would help in
that case.
Very roughly, I calculated the bearing of each way, and matched up ones
that were within a few metres laterally and a few degrees of 180deg of each
other.
Richard
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Mateusz Koni
It's established that we use relations for routes, because the components
are related geo-spatially to one another (in a particular order, sometimes
having particular roles such as forward/backward). If a way forms part of
multiple routes, that is fine - just make it a member of multiple relations.
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
(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 GM
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
> >
Click on the dots, ctrl-a, delete. It's a lot easier than regex.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Map it one way or the other (I'd say either was acceptable), but don't
switch repeatedly between the two.
There are many tram systems which only really separate from the road at
stops, with much less separation between stops than your clear white line.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Fernando Tre
y tags mixed on same line (akin
> to maping bus lanes with tags on the main way)
> 52.0680083 4.288239 Same as previous
> 43.6513302 -79.3843008 Highway and railway are overlapping ways
> (probably bad practice, and also seems to break the logic of "one line
> for each rail tra
I've taken to adding a way on the alignment of the crossing (with
highway=footway+crossing=traffic_signals as tags). This allows them to be
rendered as a orientated feature, rather than just as a node.
I guess the nodes aren't rendered because otherwise you'd have traffic
light symbols dotted all
Example in OSM default render:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.75352/-1.26340
and my rendering:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/busmap/?zoom=3&lat=51.75325&lon=-1.26182&layers=B0FT
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> On 15/07/2015 08:42, Richard Mann w
ayers=B000FF
>
>
> https://github.com/cquest/osmfr-cartocss/blob/abe144cfb375eb7fb403992f06924c40120c6cbf/other.mss#L3547
>
> To me, it seems worse for mapnik to miss the rendering of 75% of traffic
> lights than not displaying any of them. If you can see some the assumpti
You might have to explain a little more what the issue is, if you want
comments from people from other countries who don't speak much/any Polish...
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> There's a lengthy discussion going on polish forum about using
> motorway/trunk tagging for our
07.2015 15:16, Richard Mann napisał(a):
>
>> You might have to explain a little more what the issue is, if you want
>> comments from people from other countries who don't speak much/any
>> Polish...
>>
>
> I gave the link only as a convenience for those who speak o
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:23 PM, wrote:
> On Thu Jul 16 15:06:34 2015 GMT+0100, Richard Mann wrote:
> > For those interested, the issue appears to be that the Poles can have
> > multiple routes on one road section (fine, just like the Americans, use
> > relations), but also
What we have is a mess. Most data consumers will simplify it to meet their
needs.
About the only useful high-level distinction is between well-made paths,
typically in an urban environment, which clearly have been built with the
intention that they be used by someone, and poorly-made paths (mostly
people use tags in
practice: all tags develop a semantic meaning, the only question is whether
anybody understands what that meaning is!
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 03.08.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Richard Mann <
This isn't an argument that's ever likely to reach consensus.
Use of highway=path for unmade paths, usage rights vague is unobjectionable.
Use of highway=footway for made-up paths, default usage foot is
unobjectionable.
Other uses carry a degree of ambiguity.
All we can do is document the variou
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> For Belgium we follow this convention:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths
> It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we
> have to revisit and retag them all. :-)
>
So if it's a 2m pav
I use highway=footway+crossing=X+crossing_ref=Y on *ways* (as well as
placing a wiki-compliant node at the intersection of the crossing way and
the road way).
This makes it (relatively) easy to draw a Zebra crossing, correctly
orientated along the way.
Richard
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Ge
It's been the advice for a long time to use a node. Some data users will
expect a node.
I use both a way and a node, because I can make good use of the way.
Looks like someone has set up a preset that does the way and not the node.
That's not ideal, because some data users will expect the node to
Just to add to the fun, we're now getting a new type of roundabout, with a
different-coloured circle of tarmac and no signs (or markings) at all. I'd
use a node if the mini-roundabout is just an ineffectual piece of traffic
calming, and make a circle if people genuinely give way (yes I know that's
You may or may not know, but mid-block signalled crossings are a bit of a
UK-specific phenomenon. In many other countries (in Europe, anyway),
signalled crossings are part of junctions.
Anyway, if you want something rendered, raise a ticket with the renderers;
it's not a tagging issue as such.
On
treetmap.org/#map=17/51.74895/-1.23984&layers=C
Richard
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Tom Pfeifer
wrote:
> Richard Mann wrote on 2015/11/22 23:24:
>
>> You may or may not know, but mid-block signalled crossings are a bit of a
>> UK-specific phenomenon. In many other c
Nodes don't have an orientation, so I find it useful to put crossing=* tags
on the footway/cycleway, so I can render it with a nice set of black and
white stripes.
Eg:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/cyclemap/?zoom=3&lat=51.74075&lon=-1.25238&layers=B0TF
I also add the tags to the intersecting
Cabinet maker. But furniture maker is probably better.
On 31 Mar 2016 10:34, "Andreas Labres" wrote:
> What would be the "correct" English term (craft=* value) for a "furniture
> maker"?
>
> And what if that craftsman works on both building houses and making
> furniture ("Bau- und Möbeltischlerei
The links around my city have links_lower and links_higher tags so the
renderer can use those if they prefer. It works a treat.
(I raised this a few years ago and got shot down by people saying "you
can't change this now").
Some problems have no acceptable solutions...
On 27 Apr 2017 22:37, "dja
Relations between adjacent ways - yuk - proximity tests between
near-parallel ways are computationally horrible. It isn't adequate to
just say the two are related and hope the data consumer will sort out
the mess. The cycleway key is applied to the road to say what the
cycle facility is on that cor
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
> The wiki should be a place to document the various parts of OSM, and for
> things like software it can be useful. For tags, however, it is getting
> steadily more and more complex and confusing and less and less beneficial.
I think we need to s
cutting:left=yes
Rendering is, as ever, another matter.
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Is there a way to tag a cutting that's only on one side of the feature? This
> appears to be an example:
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dXEL7_-VClA/TOnGKjrOgDI/A3Q/dGJZk3ZhETM
That'll be a very big boat
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2011/6/14 Sander Deryckere :
>> It's Paul Johnson who introduced the tag, not Nathan.
>>
>> Your comment is right, but you should point it to Paul Johnson instead.
>
>
> yes, I saw this, he kept it, so they'
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Paul Johnson wrote...
Well done Paul, for not rising to the bait.
Can we keep discussions productive please.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Stephen Hope wrote:
> On 22 June 2011 15:13, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I assumed he meant "only U-turn and forward" - ie no left or right
> turns. I have seen that restriction once at a t-junction, where the
> side street can enter the main road in either direction,
Urban normal in the UK is 100-120mm. Raised (at eg bus stops) is about 160-200mm
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>>
>> 2011-06-22 Josh Doe:
>> > I think we're definitely going for functional. The original author used
>> > th
kerb=flush would mean that there is a kerbstone (with all the
potential for localised puddling, misalignment, settling etc), whereas
kerb=no would mean there's a continuous tarmac surface - the latter
occurs either if someone is trying to make a very smooth transition
between the road and a cycle t
I would be glad if it was revived. As we get ever more detailed
imagery, people are starting to want to split roads in two at every
intersection and it makes for a right mess: I'd prefer if there was a
more elegant way of handling divided roads in towns.
The routing stuff should be smothered - it'
oneway:bicycle=no is used by OpenCycleMap etc
it might be better as oneway:psv=no, rather than oneway:bus=no
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the
boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) -
without being too country-specific. I'm not sure that the deleted
sentence is particularly helpful, so I'd leave it out on the
keep-it-simple principle.
__
wrote:
> 2011/7/27 Richard Mann :
>> When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the
>> boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) -
>
>
> Yes, but on the other hand deleting the cited part changed the
> definition and
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>>> http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg
That's a dropped kerb, which is probably semantically equivalent to
"lowered". But "dropped" is the standard en-gb term.
___
Ta
Trams and street-running light rail should have railway=tram_stop. Put
in a sub-tag if you want to distinguish different types.
If your light-rail system runs onto heavy rail (eg famously in
Karlsruhe), and shares stations with heavy rail passenger services,
then use railway=station on the clearly
e rights of way of. As far as I can tell
> the original heavy rail tracks are used, at least on some stretches. Of
> course new signaling and overhead wires were installed.
> Martijn
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Richard Mann
> wrote:
>>
>> Trams and street-running
Put the sidewalk tag on the road, and put some indicator on the
footway (I use adjacent=yes) that it's also covered by tagging on the
adjacent way.
The worst that happens is some router gets two parallel links in their
network, or that some super-clever algorithm identifies two parallel
sidewalks
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/22/11 13:43, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>> More seriously, in Boston we sometimes use the word "subway" to refer to
>> several MBTA lines, and non-train-nerds don't really distinguish between
>> the Green Line (which is probably "li
I think you meant "might be advised" rather than "need"
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> If entrance=* is being used at all, you need to change your rendering to
> support it, whether or not existing building=entrances are being changed.
>
__
They are called bus bays in EN-GB.
I'd probably add a suitable tag (bay=yes, maybe) to the highway=bus_stop
node (and maybe to a node on the road on the lines of busway:right=bay or
some such).
But I haven't tagged any (might be something to do with the negative value
I associate with them...)
R
-06 at 09:11 +, Richard Mann wrote:
>
> > But I haven't tagged any (might be something to do with the negative
> > value I associate with them...)
>
> Curious what negative value this is?
>
> ___
> Ta
Paul asked; I answered out of courtesy. It was off-topic so I'm not going
to discuss further.
Richard
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/12/7 Richard Mann :
> > A bus bay means
> > 1) less sidewalk (usually)
>
>
> in here usually no
I'd have called it amenity=parking+access=private and then added a way
through the area for pedestrians (tagging individual parking aisles,
probably, plus any footway links to connect it up)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Simone Saviolo
wrote:
> 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> > 2012/1/11 Er
access=private is a modifying tag - if it is used in conjuction with an
amenity=parking area then it means that the parking is private (and nothing
else). I guess you could use something more specific like parking=private,
but there are 1000s of uses of access=private in this context, so it's
unlik
Life's too short to argue about something like this.
Just use something that's locally meaningful - that's all most mappers will
understand, and if there's an international scale, document that and maybe
people will use it (but they probably won't).
level=secondary/primary works for me
If it's s
The problem is that setts are often referred to as cobbles, in common
parlance. If someone tags something as cobbles, I'd probably reckon they
were actually setts 99% of the time.
http://g.co/maps/bnndk The stuff in the road is cobbles; in the gutter and
on the pavements is setts.
So having a cle
Probably better to introduce a new value to mean
yes-they-really-are-cobbles. Perhaps "cobbles" (as opposed to cobblestone)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> > In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and
> > non-overlapping. So I disa
Well the British railway speak for such locations would probably be "TRUST
reporting point" or timing point. They are typically junctions, crossovers
or passing places (if there's no station). So I'm not sure there's a
"public" term available.
Maybe railway=location?
Richard
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012
Yes, I remember *Adlestrop* ...
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Richard Mann wrote:
> > Maybe railway=location?
>
> Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established
> place=locality
> for tagging a 'lieu-dit'.
>
> (
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> But I think about adding a statement, that
> usually only on major roads or very complex junctions those lanes are
> actually mapped. Can we agree on this?
>
+1 Urban roads are going to be very messy if every little centre turning
lane gets
If it's <4m, you will be able to see continuous wear on the verge where
people drive off the edge of the tarmac. At >4m there will only be wear for
occasional large vehicles (tractor tracks, typically). At 6m there's
usually a centre line.
I'd quite like some tags for these subtleties, but I would
The distinction in the UK is between a roundabout and a gyratory.
Roundabouts can have signals, but they tend to be linked so that it flows,
and if you're going straight ahead, you won't normally stop once you're on
the roundabout. Roundabouts don't generally have buildings in the middle,
or pedest
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> You have to keep in mind that most of the streets are in fact a
> collection of parallel features. Only at some points (junctions, ends)
> this might not be true. The proposed relation might(!) be a solution
> for some special cases (e.g. ir
In Denmark, they use lanes/tracks that are immediately alongside the road
and separated by a shallow kerb, and turn into lanes on the approach to
junctions. You can certainly move on and off them very easily.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry for the late
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125
(lorry stuck on very tight corner)
This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803
Maybe such tags need regularising
Not sure I'd bother with cycle tracks though.
Richard
"gym" is a bit colloquial, but if it's already in use then go for it
(potential confusion for German speakers, I guess, but probably tolerable)
Richard
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/16/12 10:24, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
>> Sports centres are usually big,
Chill guys.
Refs and street names on ways are OK in most countries. So leave well
alone. Data consumers can and do cope.
If you're one of the few places that use multiple refs on a single street,
then code them by local agreement - probably using relations.
Yes, relation support should improve.
Bridge ref & highway ref: bridge ref should have a specific tag, such as
bridge:ref=whatever
Two roads meet at roundabouts: roundabout has higher-ranking (ie lower)
number, unless the higher-ranking road has a flyover or underpass. Or don't
have a ref.
None of the issues raised justify changing a
I guess that'll be me.
The total number of tracks is a useful piece of data, whereas tracks=1 on
the four individual tracks is useless. I don't really mind where the
information is stored; the tracks tag looked like a sensible place to me
(and indeed was already being used in this way in some plac
Tracks is actually mostly used in the UK to tag the total number of tracks,
whether the lines have been individually mapped or not (this snapshot is a
few days old):
http://www.itoworld.com/map/14#lat=51.78185298480979&lon=-0.5093040346167376&zoom=7
___
I think we're rapidly heading to mapping each track separately. They can
all be labelled as tracks=1 (though the wiki doesn't actually tell you to
do that), but that would be completely pointless. It might have some value
in the interim period, but the tag isn't used consistently enough to make
tha
-changing infrastructure-type information is better
recorded on the ways. Whereas service-type information is better recorded
in relations.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Mann <
> richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've copied the info to a new passenger_lines tag, since it would appear
that some people would prefer to use the tracks tag for a different purpose.
For those of you who don't have experience of train operations, I can
assure you that the number of tracks available for passenger operations
(and i
There's two things that distinguish HSLs/LGVs/NBSs: high maxspeed
(typically 250-320, though some would include the new lines in Switzerland,
which are "only" 200), and a lack of slow traffic (freight, stopping
passenger services) because they have alternative routes.
In some cases, you can get pr
official" designation (from
> Network Rail)? I recall also seeing things like service=main_line (from
> memory) to distinguish main line from local tracks.
>
> Colin
>
>
> On 09/08/2012 11:33, Richard Mann wrote:
>
> There's two things that distinguish HSLs/LGVs/NBSs: h
I've added track_detail=yes in places where there are tracks>1 tags but the
lines are separately drawn. I've included some that have been there for a
while.
I've contacted the only people who I'm aware that use the tracks data
(itoworld) to see if deleting the tracks tags (or setting them all to
t
Dave has been quite rude, and completely dismissive of the value of
anything other than his interpretation of what the wiki states. Internet
etiquette is that you do not respond to rudeness, so I haven't.
Counting parallel lines is a pain, and trying to put the info into
relations is unnecessarily
http://www.itoworld.com/map/25
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm looking for a map where I can see what ways are (not) tagged with
> surface/smoothness. The tag width would be a nice-to-have. Maybe
> something like OSMI?
>
> Any hints for me?
>
> Martin
>
>
It looks like it's just inside the village (commune?) boundary. Maybe they
mean the whole village?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM, André Pirard wrote:
> **
> Hi,
>
> Summary: setting access restrictions on ways sometimes (often?)
> inappropriate
> Full story and conclusions: ...
>
> At 50.5308
I'd probably go for highway=service+surface=asphalt to photo 4, then
highway=footway+surface=asphalt+bicycle=yes thereafter. Possibly
highway=service all the way until it's not passable by motor-vehicle.
(residential seems inappropriate since it's a shared surface without even a
token sidewalk, bu
Slowly walk away.
The usage in the UK should be shifted to a new key (maybe something like
path_type), and the rest probably ignored.
The choice of name for the key stemmed from access=designated, and (with
20:20 hindsight) was a mistake. There are some people who prefer to have
multi-purpose key
Source? Most of these things are "owned" by Network Rail, and it's not
clear whether they are publically available without strings.
I'd love this to be available (speaking as someone who made maps of delay
in a former life...).
Richard
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Peter Hicks wrote:
> All,
Try using Potlatch
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm a little desperate now. The increasing number of relations -
> especially those for public transport - make it harder and harder to
> make simple edits.
>
> Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/14
If only a handful of people are likely to use the data (inevitable with
lots of overlapping catchments), then create it offline (draw it as a
separate layer in JOSM and save it). If more than 1 person will use it,
post it somewhere. You could add a link on the wiki city page.
But I wouldn't add ob
Martin's problem would be solved if the extra-long relation is broken up
into segments. Which you are just as free to do as splitting a way in two.
Keep the relation tags on each segment, just like you'd do if you split a
way.
(This is rather different to Jo's proposal, which involves shifting tag
I think Martin is complaining about long-distance coach services. Splitting
them into within-urban and extra-urban segments would seem fairly sensible
to me.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jo wrote:
> 2012/12/4 Richard Mann
>
>> Martin's problem would be solved if the extra
I think shared_lane is used when the bikes are sharing the lane with cars,
perhaps with a cycle logo in the centre of the lane. Sharrows are when
there are cycle logos to one side, but no lane marking (not very common in
the UK; I've seen them in Brussels alongside parked cars, and they're more
oft
No word for it in English (en-gb), to my knowledge. Locally we'd refer to
"the slope by the bridge" or "going up to Rayleigh Park". As some of us
were doing yesterday :o)
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
> I've spent every winter since ~2008 wondering what you call a Pulk
I think you are misinterpreting the one feature "rule". It's about trying
to avoid situations where there are two versions of the same thing (eg an
area-which-can-be-resolved-to-a-point and a node), not situations where
there are multiple parts to a single whole.
The Danube river is perfectly adeq
)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2013/1/29 Richard Mann
>
>> The Danube river is perfectly adequately made whole by looking for
>> name:en=Danube. Get the computer to do the work, not mappers.
>>
>
> What if there is a little river Danube, s
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
