I've written each of my answers on top of an answered post. Am 23.12.2014 um 09:17 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √ > cycletracks) (fly) > 2. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √ > cycletracks) (715371) > 3. Re: Date of survey (Marc Gemis) > 4. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √ > cycletracks) (Mateusz Konieczny) > 5. Re: Date of survey (althio forum) > 6. Re: Date of survey (Jean-Marc Liotier) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For roadline-tagged cycletracks, that is a good idea. Nevertheless, I hope we get a tagging scheme that is available for roadline-tagged and for separately drawn cycletracks almost in the same way.
> Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:49:24 +0100 > From: fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. > optional cycletracks) > Message-ID: <54989ff4.2070...@googlemail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is > cycleway=track. > > Now we have two solutions: > > 1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track > 2. add a new key like bicycle_track=* > > My two cents > > fly > > Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert: >> The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways >> isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between >> bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand >> bicycle=designated/yes. >> >> In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like >> bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an >> access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike >> cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must >> ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing. >> >> OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich >> Lamm<___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_<mailto:ulamm.b...@t-online.de>> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and >> >>> cycleway=optional. >> >>> >> >>> Now I hope for your comments. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Make a better suggestion that describes the feature in the same quality of relaibility and of slim tagging! > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:47:53 +0100 > From: 715371 <osmu715...@gmx.de> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. > optional cycletracks) > Message-ID: <5498ada9.7050...@gmx.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 > > Am 22.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Ulrich Lamm: >> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and >> cycleway=optional. > > I am still against this tag as I mentioned several times. > > > > ------------------------------ > That's an interesting idea. Nevertheless it ought to be possible to record the basic features of obligation and direction without separate waylines. It is known that I like separately drawn cycletracks – on main roads and on crucial links of the cycle traffic network. But in Bremen we have hundreds of kms of cycletracks in residential streets that even I don't like to draw separately :) > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:17:41 +0100 > From: Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. > optional cycletracks) > Message-ID: > <caldvra5obhgphar_ucoro3drtelxxrrke9ec0rhefcivr2e...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > "cycleway=track" > > I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates > some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details. > > In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road, > width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous. > > Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is > nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way - > sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes). > > These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way > (with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially > geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags. > > At least this is my experience from tagging cycleway > data in Kraków and using this data to render a map of bicycle > related infrastructure. > > > 2014-12-22 23:49 GMT+01:00 fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com>: > >> As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is >> cycleway=track. >> >> Now we have two solutions: >> >> 1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track >> 2. add a new key like bicycle_track=* >> >> My two cents >> >> fly >> >> Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert: >>> The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways >>> isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between >>> bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand >>> bicycle=designated/yes. >>> >>> In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like >>> bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an >>> access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike >>> cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must >>> ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing >> sing. >>> >>> OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich >>> Lamm<___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_<mailto:ulamm.b...@t-online.de>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and >>> >>>> cycleway=optional. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Now I hope for your comments. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141223/e91e5d6a/attachment-0001.html> > >> -------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141223/58f3fcd0/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 68 > ***************************************
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
