Re: [OSM-talk] Mobile app using OSM

[Matthias Meißer]

Hi welcome to OSM Mahsa,

well first you should discover our data model, data formats and so on.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Develop

Next you should specify the goals of your application, so you want to 
write a logger or a router etc
You might get inspiration/code snippets by other software that is 
similar to your plans

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Software

The following steps as inventing a good data model, OSM data import, ... 
rely on the decision you took one step before and are very close to the 
goal of your tool.


For details I would recommend the DEV talk list

bye
Matthias

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Andreas Perstinger]

On 2011-03-06 00:10, john whelan wrote:

My concern is purely that data I have entered may not all have been from
pure uncopyrighted sources and if someone is taking legal action based my
input I would like to feel it was only based on data that was absolutely
pure.


Could you give an example of data you entered you think was good for 
cc-by-sa and is not for odbl?
Thus it's probably easier for others to give an answer not based on 
vague assumptions.


Bye, Andreas

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] webmap that plots coordinates and output gpx tracks

[maning sambale]

AFAIK, ORS does not cover my country (Philippines).

I'm using a combination of yournavigation and cloudmade routing (both
provides gpx output) for my purpose for now.

2011/3/5 Matthias Meißer :
> Hi,
>
> what about http://openrouteservice.org ?
> A few more are at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maps#Routing
>
> bye
> Matthias
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Mobile app using OSM

[Mahsa Ghasemi]

*I want to write an OSM mobile application with python for symbian s60. Does
anybody know how I can add OSM API and edit data in my application?
*
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[John Smith]

On 6 March 2011 09:10, john whelan  wrote:
> So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in
> layman's terms.  Thank you for your input.

The new license changes things from something many people understand
to something massively more complex that it's proponents can't even
agree over what it means.

Instead of just relying on copyright it tries to use contract and
database law as well, and this will make things much more complex for
people distributing, since they would need to form contracts with
people copying, but of course this is one point of contention, some
dispute this, but for ODBL to stick beyond copyright a contract has to
be in place otherwise why switch from cc-by-sa in the first place.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Antony Pegg  wrote:
>
> knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will find
> tags we've missed that should or could be used for bike/pedestrian.  If you
> feel its worth mentioning, please please please provide some point of
> reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a link to a route on the open
> mapquest site where it isnt going thru a feature you think it should.
> Thanks.

Hmm, I just tried it out and wondered why this route completely
avoided a very nice bike trail:

http://open.mapquest.com/link/3-HcbmL9UO

What tags is the route planner looking for when considering bicycle routing?

Otherwise, I think the MapQuest Open service is great!

-- 
Jeff Ollie

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Paul Johnson]

On 03/04/2011 05:05 PM, john whelan wrote:
> A possible task on the OSM side is to check the tags on footways through
> parks.  Some cities allow bicycles to use them but it needs local
> knowledge, perhaps a project of the week?  As we start to get more
> routing made available so having the right tags on footways and cycle
> paths becomes more important.

If it's a footway, unless it's clearly designed around foot use first
and foremost with bicycle an afterthought, it doesn't allow bicycles
unless explicitly tagged bicycle=yes.  Otherwise it's a path.  Maybe a
cycleway if there is indication that it's use is primarily for bicycles.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:36:32 +1100
Steve Bennett  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:12 AM, ant  wrote:
> > very nice! I've checked some of my daily bicycle routes. Of four
> > routes two are perfect, and two have become too long--obviously in
> > favour of the use of cycleways. Don't forget that although
> > cycleways are preferable, cycling on roads is still possible and
> > avoiding it usually isn't worth a 10% increase of distance.
> 
> Interesting, my threshold would be closer to 40 or 50%. You're saying
> you'd rather ride 20km on roads rather than 22km on bike path? I
> wonder how they can cope with such a range in preferences.
> 
> Steve
> 

and I ride 30% more to avoid traffic (and improve fitness, of course)


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Joseph Reeves  wrote:
> There's a balance that
> needs to be struck, but people should understand that legal issues are
> core to OSM.
>
> If you want to contribute to a project and not ask questions about the
> legal issues concerning data you produce, you might as well sign up
> for Google Map Maker; I thought that OSM had this licensing issue at
> the heart of what we did, but I could be wrong.

Lots of things are central to OSM, like tagging, licensing, import
issues, geodata standards, usability and quality, editing conventions,
database issues, etc. And it's precisely the number of varied topics
that are important to OSM why we have specialized mailing lists: dev,
legal-talk, tagging, etc.

There are many people who are sick and tired of seeing email about
licenses and that's why they're on talk, not legal-talk. So if you
want to discuss license issues, then take the time to subscribe to
legal-talk and then unsubscribe when you are satisfied and never
(hopefully) be bothered again about it.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Steve Bennett]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:12 AM, ant  wrote:
> very nice! I've checked some of my daily bicycle routes. Of four routes two
> are perfect, and two have become too long--obviously in favour of the use of
> cycleways. Don't forget that although cycleways are preferable, cycling on
> roads is still possible and avoiding it usually isn't worth a 10% increase
> of distance.

Interesting, my threshold would be closer to 40 or 50%. You're saying
you'd rather ride 20km on roads rather than 22km on bike path? I
wonder how they can cope with such a range in preferences.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Paul Johnson]

On 03/04/2011 08:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote:

> knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will
> find tags we've missed that should or could be used for
> bike/pedestrian.  If you feel its worth mentioning, please please please
> provide some point of reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a
> link to a route on the open mapquest site where it isnt going thru a
> feature you think it should. Thanks.

One thing I just noticed trying a route from Shadow Mountain, Tulsa, OK
to the BOK Center, Tulsa, OK was the transit directions.  How is
Mapquest finding these on OSM data?  Is it limited exclusively to rail
services, or are bus routes included, too?  How is schedule information
discovered by this service?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Paul Johnson]

On 03/04/2011 08:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote:

> knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will
> find tags we've missed that should or could be used for
> bike/pedestrian.  If you feel its worth mentioning, please please please
> provide some point of reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a
> link to a route on the open mapquest site where it isnt going thru a
> feature you think it should. Thanks.

For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38
based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to
see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with
a more direct route taking the motorway_link Skelly Drive to get under I
44 at Darlington.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Paul Johnson]

On 03/04/2011 08:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote:

> knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will
> find tags we've missed that should or could be used for
> bike/pedestrian.  If you feel its worth mentioning, please please please
> provide some point of reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a
> link to a route on the open mapquest site where it isnt going thru a
> feature you think it should. Thanks.

Another thing I just noticed...MapQuest is completely ignoring
route=bicycle relations.  Something that would be nice but isn't as
critical is to pick up on bicycle=preferred/avoid cues for ways that
have been observed by mappers to be ideal/scary to use by bicycle.

I would also suggest providing more weight to residential roads over
higher priority roads if they lack cycleway=* tags or bicycle=designated
tags, since at least in the US, major arterials are often the least
ideal route for a cyclist, particularly inexperienced, out of shape, or
extremely young/old riders.  It would be a selling point to shoot for
the "8-88 with no special bicycle skills" demographic by default with
the ability to change routing options based on strength (which already
exists with the hill modes) or ability (ie, intermediate riders may get
routed onto a secondary now and then and prefer residential to tertiary,
and bump it one higher for strong riders, and include motorways and
trunks where not tagged bicycle=no for die-hard utility cycling)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Paul Johnson]

On 03/04/2011 08:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote:
> HI all,
> 
> just a quick note - we've added bicycle and pedestrian routing options
> to the MapQuest Open sites

Thank you!  I know I suggested this, I don't know if I was the only one.

> knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will
> find tags we've missed that should or could be used for
> bike/pedestrian.  If you feel its worth mentioning, please please please
> provide some point of reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a
> link to a route on the open mapquest site where it isnt going thru a
> feature you think it should. Thanks.

Will do!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Joseph Reeves]

> No, just that your more likely to get an answer about the legal side of
> things in legal-talk.

But this is the problem; the "legal side of things" is the central
issue to OpenStreetMap at the moment. You can't simply try and
sideline a difficult issue by describing it as "legal".
*Open*StreetMap is defined by its license, but there are plenty of
people who want to change the license, and therefore the core of the
project, without explaining in layman's terms what this means.

I signed up to contribute to a map with a specific license; changing
the license down the line isn't a legal matter, it's a core user
issue. This is something that many in the licensing discussions have
failed to address, probably because it's difficult and it's easier to
say "the legal mailing list is over there".

I've received emails from OSM contributors asking why I haven't
accepted the new license terms; I always reply saying that I would
consider it if it could be explained in a manner that didn't end in
trolling on the mailing lists. So far nobody has managed to do that.

In fairness, I don't want to get spammed on the talk list with
trolling (Anthony?) remarks about the license change, but saying that
people can't ask questions about it *at all* is just a lazy attempt to
try and ignore the defining feature of OSM. There's a balance that
needs to be struck, but people should understand that legal issues are
core to OSM.

If you want to contribute to a project and not ask questions about the
legal issues concerning data you produce, you might as well sign up
for Google Map Maker; I thought that OSM had this licensing issue at
the heart of what we did, but I could be wrong.

Cheers, Joseph




On 5 March 2011 23:29, Robert Naylor  wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:10:38 -, john whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in
>> layman's terms.  Thank you for your input.
>
> No, just that your more likely to get an answer about the legal side of
> things in legal-talk.
>
> --
> Robert
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Robert Naylor]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:10:38 -, john whelan   
wrote:


So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in  
layman's terms.  Thank you for your input.


No, just that your more likely to get an answer about the legal side of  
things in legal-talk.


--
Robert

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Mike N]

On 3/5/2011 6:10 PM, john whelan wrote:

Since you are unable to supply sufficient information about odbl for me
to feel a level of comfort with it I think the next question becomes how
can we remove my questionable data or is that a topic for legal-talk as
well?


http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[john whelan]

So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in
layman's terms.  Thank you for your input.

I have noted some posts saying that some data had leaked into Google or whom
ever maps and that odbl would prevent this in some way so it would seem that
if we are going in this legal style path that we have a need for a higher
standard of data input.

There is a wide range of sources used from a hand held GPS device through
copying down the name from a sign.  If its the only name on the sign there
is no copyright, but if there is a collection of names then there is
copyright.

My concern is purely that data I have entered may not all have been from
pure uncopyrighted sources and if someone is taking legal action based my
input I would like to feel it was only based on data that was absolutely
pure.

Since you are unable to supply sufficient information about odbl for me to
feel a level of comfort with it I think the next question becomes how can we
remove my questionable data or is that a topic for legal-talk as well?

Thanks

Cheerio John

On 5 March 2011 16:17, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> John,
>
>
> john whelan wrote:
>
>> The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it.
>>
>
> The legal-talk mailing list is an excellent place to ask questions about
> ODbL.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Cartinus]

On Saturday 05 March 2011 21:12:43 ant wrote:
> One more thing... it seems that turn restrictions are regarded--although
> they generally don't apply to cyclists (in most countries I guess).
> Please fix this.

They should be regarded unless there is a tag except=bicycle on the 
restriction relation.




-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:17:33 +0100
Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> John,
> 
> john whelan wrote:
> > The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it. 
> 
> The legal-talk mailing list is an excellent place to ask questions
> about ODbL.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[john]

Ideally, one would be able to set priorities for shortest distance vs. fewer 
hills vs. less traffic, and thus adjust the route suggestions to the 
individual's preferences.  Perhaps, one could save several different "presets", 
and pick between them.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
>From  :mailto:ed...@billiau.net
Date  :Sat Mar 05 14:14:33 America/Chicago 2011


On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 13:34:17 +0100
Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Anyway, just did a quick test ...
> > I'm shocked. That's almost the exact route I took yesterday.
> 
> Same test here and same result... The differences being the result of
> a couple of mistakes in the map, which I'm going to correct very
> soon. I'm pleased with MapQuest Open's bicycle default routing
> algorithm.
> 
> The relief avoidance weighting is rather extreme - it will make
> rather large detours to get around molehills...
> 
> 
>
I tried it and it would send me down the main road and not the back
roads I usually use. I know I cycle a few kms further but the diversion
is preferable for safety.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Frederik Ramm]

John,

john whelan wrote:
The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it. 


The legal-talk mailing list is an excellent place to ask questions about 
ODbL.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Nic Roets]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Antony Pegg  wrote:
>  - We've already discovered highway=bridleway not included - we've updated

Hello Ant,

Considering how weak the standardization processes inside OSM is, you
should considered prior art:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/rendering/gosmore/elemstyles.xml

Regards,
Nic

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 13:34:17 +0100
Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Anyway, just did a quick test ...
> > I'm shocked. That's almost the exact route I took yesterday.
> 
> Same test here and same result... The differences being the result of
> a couple of mistakes in the map, which I'm going to correct very
> soon. I'm pleased with MapQuest Open's bicycle default routing
> algorithm.
> 
> The relief avoidance weighting is rather extreme - it will make
> rather large detours to get around molehills...
> 
> 
>
I tried it and it would send me down the main road and not the back
roads I usually use. I know I cycle a few kms further but the diversion
is preferable for safety.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[ant]

Hi Antony,

On 04.03.2011 15:04, Antony Pegg wrote:

HI all,

just a quick note - we've added bicycle and pedestrian routing options to
the MapQuest Open sites


very nice! I've checked some of my daily bicycle routes. Of four routes 
two are perfect, and two have become too long--obviously in favour of 
the use of cycleways. Don't forget that although cycleways are 
preferable, cycling on roads is still possible and avoiding it usually 
isn't worth a 10% increase of distance.
Btw, I really like the OpenRouteService idea of different cycling 
profiles (shortest, safest, racer, mtb), although their implementation 
hasn't yet convinced me...


For another test I have compared the Bremen-Berlin route results on 
MapQuest and OpenRouteService. MQ's route is 409 km while with ORS it's 
352 km. Can you assure the 409 km route is /that/ scenic?
I think I will ride this route this month, so... I'm going to use the 
ORS route description for the outward run, and MapQuest's on the return 
run. Then I'll let you know about the results.


One more thing... it seems that turn restrictions are regarded--although 
they generally don't apply to cyclists (in most countries I guess). 
Please fix this.


MapQuest usability is a charm. There are some small adjustments that 
must be made to the routing, but then it's gonna be a really good thing. 
Thank you.


cheers
ant

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] odbl

[john whelan]

The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it.

I think I understood what CC-by-SA meant and added information based on that
understanding.  Now the rules have changed and I'm not clear about data I
have added in the past, now labelled odbl and if it met the new criteria at
the time I added it.

This is more a comfort thing than anything else.  Have I inadvertently
granted OSM some permissions which I did not have have the authority to
grant based on some one's advice rather than checking for myself.

Thanks John
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Steve Bennett]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:
> The relief avoidance weighting is rather extreme - it will make rather large
> detours to get around molehills...

Yeah, it possibly goes a little far. But it's easy to add extra way
points to make a more direct route. It's harder, in general, to find
better indirect routes, so the default is pretty good for me.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Another large edit gone wrong (McDonald's)

[Martijn van Exel]

That does not seem to be the consensus. Rather, McDonald's is its own
possessive. See
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2933/possessive-of-a-word-thats-already-possessive

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:14:53 +
> "Dave F."  wrote:
>
> > The name of the company is McDonalds, so anything belonging to them
> > should be McDonalds's.
>
> The correct grammar for that would be McDonalds'
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://about.me/mvexel
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

Steve Bennett wrote:

Anyway, just did a quick test ...
I'm shocked. That's almost the exact route I took yesterday.


Same test here and same result... The differences being the result of a 
couple of mistakes in the map, which I'm going to correct very soon. I'm 
pleased with MapQuest Open's bicycle default routing algorithm.


The relief avoidance weighting is rather extreme - it will make rather 
large detours to get around molehills...



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

[Martijn van Exel]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Antony Pegg  wrote:

> HI all,
>
> just a quick note - we've added bicycle and pedestrian routing options to
> the MapQuest Open sites
>
> more details here:
> http://blog.mapquest.com/2011/03/03/open-routing-options-expanded/
>
> couple known things:
>  - We've already discovered highway=bridleway not included - we've updated
> the base code already, but it requires a re-conversion from scratch, so
> it'll take a week or two before bridleways get picked up
>
>  - if you're familiar with the underlying services from
> http://open.mapquestapi.com you'll notice that neither the elevation
> service, nor use of the cyclingRoadFactor parameter are in the UI yet -
> that'll come later
>
> knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will
> find tags we've missed that should or could be used for bike/pedestrian.  If
> you feel its worth mentioning, please please please provide some point of
> reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a link to a route on the open
> mapquest site where it isnt going thru a feature you think it should.
> Thanks.
>
>
Hi Ant - great addition. It looks pretty good upon initial inspection in
Amsterdam. One thing that does not seem to get picked up is one-way bike
lanes, i.e. ways with highway=cycleway, oneway=yes. We use those quite a lot
here for separate bike tracks alongside main roads.

I'm doing some more extensive testing now.

Best,

-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://about.me/mvexel
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] webmap that plots coordinates and output gpx tracks

[Matthias Meißer]

Hi,

what about http://openrouteservice.org ?
A few more are at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maps#Routing

bye
Matthias

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk