Am 02.01.2015 um 00:00 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:49 +0100 > From: 715371 <osmu715...@gmx.de> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway > Message-ID: <54a5b79d.1020...@gmx.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 > > Hi, > > there is a sentence on > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway > > which says > > "It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on > highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path > pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's > direction)." > > It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a > short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN). > But this is the opposite of what is written on > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks > > "The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide > effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative > descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk > tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example > highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track. " • "not needed" is not the same as "must not be needed" • The combination of highway=cycleway with sidewak=right or *=left needs less tags than the conventional combination of highway=path or highway=cycleway with biycyle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=yes. > > I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's. Tell us a solution that describes the existence of a cycletrack and a parallel footway without more tags and without any loss of exactness! > > If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the > first citation. What is your opinion on that? > > Cheers > Tobias > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 22:25:09 +0100 > From: Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway > Message-ID: > <CALDvra5Q=ST62exm_Gd9-mSAtJ3e5raECktfSm7sOC=pwwy...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I support revert of ulamm's edit. My sentence is no order, it is the information about an unconventional but correct description of reality, which is also understood by routers. If groops of 10, 20 or even 50 people think to be allowed to forbid true informations, OSM would become medieval. > > 2015-01-01 22:09 GMT+01:00 715371 <osmu715...@gmx.de>: > > _________________________________ >> 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/20150101/45880dae/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:30:18 +0100 > From: Hubert <sg.fo...@gmx.de> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > > +1. I'm also removal. But I can unterstand the idea behind it. However it > should be discussed some more. > > Am 1. Januar 2015 22:09:49 MEZ, schrieb 715371 <osmu715...@gmx.de>: >> Hi, >> >> there is a sentence on >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway >> >> which says >> >> "It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on > > -- > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150101/c6a078ab/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 22:48:33 +0100 > From: Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > > +1 > > I think this should be tagged with lanes, to be compatible with road lane > tagging: > > bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|no > foot:lanes:forward=no|designated > > Or if this looks a bit complicated (it does to me) invent a new tag, > something like: > > designated:lanes:forward=bicycle|foot Cycle lanes are cycling facilities on the carriageway. A cycletrack as well as a sidewalk are spaces beside the carriageway.
A cycletrack may be mapped using roadline tags, but that limits the accuracy of description. Up to now, even openstreetmap/cyclemap does not render anything that excedes "highway=secondary" (or else) + "cycleway=track", which due to that rendering problem, by many mappers is used for roads with an unilateral cycletrack as well as for roads with cycletracks on both sides. Better description and exact localization are possible by using separately drawn cycletracks, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Supplementary_details With this kind of mapping, the sidewalks of the same street have to be recorded without too many tags. > > Janko Mihelić > > 2015-01-01 22:30 GMT+01:00 Hubert <sg.fo...@gmx.de>: > >> +1. I'm also removal. But I can unterstand the idea behind it. However it >> should be discussed some more. >> >> Am 1. Januar 2015 22:09:49 MEZ, schrieb 715371 <osmu715...@gmx.de>: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> there is a sentence on >>> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway >>> >>> which says >>> >>> "It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on … >>> >>> Tobias >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
