It's common in Sweden to have wide sidewalks divided into half
footway, half cycleway. This can happen on either or both sides
of the street. Should this be tagged as highway=*;cycleway=lane?
Technically speaking it isn't a lane because it's above the curb.
How can I indicate which (or both)
gt; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:41:26 + (UTC)
> From: David Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Martin Vidner vidner.net&g
> It's common in Sweden to have wide sidewalks divided into half
> footway, half cycleway. This can happen on either or both sides
> of the street. Should this be tagged as highway=*;cycleway=lane?
> Technically speaking it isn't a lane because it's above the curb.
Theoretically, you could use "t
At 07:32 AM 24/03/2008, Lars Aronsson wrote:
>It's common in Sweden to have wide sidewalks divided into half
>footway, half cycleway. This can happen on either or both sides
>of the street. Should this be tagged as highway=*;cycleway=lane?
>Technically speaking it isn't a lane because it's abo
I think a lot of the physical cycleway tagging is ambiguous at the
moment, especially with the cycleway= tag. I think cycleway=track was
intended only for adding to highway=* (not highway=cycleway), but I
would advise that all off-road cycle paths, including those on
sidewalks, are drawn as a separ
On Monday 24 March 2008 09:53:07 Andy Allan wrote:
> If the way is tagged with highway=cycleway I don't think it needs
> cycleway=track, btw.
+1
> I'm going to put together a guide for how to tag cycle paths, since
> I've been contacted by a few other groups who are finding our tagging
> insuffic
Sounds very similar to the cycleway tagging in Bedford; treat it as a
separate way if it's not on the road, which makes it easy to show if it
takes detours away from the road:
http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=52.1218000936748&lon=-0.489018411255609&zoom=17&layers=F0B0F
(the gaps are where i
On Monday 24 March 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> I think a lot of the physical cycleway tagging is ambiguous at the
> moment, especially with the cycleway= tag. I think cycleway=track was
> intended only for adding to highway=* (not highway=cycleway), but I
> would advise that all off-road cycle paths,
On Monday 24 March 2008 14:01:59 Ben Laenen wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> > I think a lot of the physical cycleway tagging is ambiguous at the
> > moment, especially with the cycleway= tag. I think cycleway=track was
> > intended only for adding to highway=* (not highway=cyc
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> > I think a lot of the physical cycleway tagging is ambiguous at the
> > moment, especially with the cycleway= tag. I think cycleway=track was
> > intended only for adding to hig
>
> > * Rendering engines could handle it much easier if it were just a
> > cycleway=* tag added to the road.
>
> Please show me the simple rendering algorithm for mapnik and osmarender you
> have envisioned to make this working for all the special cases above. Until
> you do, I keep believing
On Monday 24 March 2008 15:18:00 Dave Stubbs wrote:
> There are always edge cases that cause problems.
None of the things I mentioned above are really rare here in the Netherlands.
I realise this country is not very big, so maybe we have to live with the
fact we are an "edge country"?
--
m.v.g
On Monday 24 March 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> > ---- cycleway
> > ---- road
> > ---- road
> > ---- cycleway
>
> I count 8 ways?
> Unless you are splitting all the ways at absolutely every
> intersection which is probably a little excessive.
Not if you need to have route relatio
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008 15:18:00 Dave Stubbs wrote:
> > There are always edge cases that cause problems.
>
> None of the things I mentioned above are really rare here in the Netherlands.
> I realise this country is not very b
>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Mike Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As a cyclist currently in Stockholm, I personally draw a separate way
>> > and label it highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes,
>> surface=paved.
>
> I think the surface=paved is redundant too, because that is w
On Monday 24 March 2008 16:13:58 Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2008 15:18:00 Dave Stubbs wrote:
> > > There are always edge cases that cause problems.
> >
> > None of the things I mentioned above are really rare he
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> > > ---- cycleway
> > > ---- road
> > > ---- road
> > > ---- cycleway
> >
> > I count 8 ways?
> > Unless you are splitting all the ways at absolutely eve
Cartinus wrote:
> The first won't fly because everytime anybody mentions namespaces it gets
> boo-ed away as being too complex. The second one is absolutely no fun to
> write stylesheets for (or the renderer needs a preprocessor to split them).
> Neither way of tagging is expandable if you want
On 24/03/2008 15:12, Ben Laenen wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>>> ---- cycleway
>>> ---- road
>>> ---- road
>>> ---- cycleway
>> I count 8 ways?
>> Unless you are splitting all the ways at absolutely every
>> intersection which is probably a little excessi
On Monday 24 March 2008, Alex Mauer wrote:
> Cartinus wrote:
> > The first won't fly because everytime anybody mentions namespaces
> > it gets boo-ed away as being too complex. The second one is
> > absolutely no fun to write stylesheets for (or the renderer needs a
> > preprocessor to split them).
Hi,
> highway=secondary
> cycleway:left=bidirectional_track
> cycleway:right=track
>
> highway=secondary
> cycleway=left_bidirectional_track;right_track
>
> The first won't fly because everytime anybody mentions namespaces it gets
> boo-ed away as being too complex.
As you correctly say, both
On Monday 24 March 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Personally I'd start to way tracks separately when they have a clear
> separation. That's deliberately ambiguous because I think it varies.
> But yeah a 10m gap would certainly do it, but even a 1m gap if it's
> made of something very solid.
OK, I've g
> Next to that we already have this kind of issue with routes with ways
> with backward/forward roles anyway. Furthermore, cycle lanes will
> always be part of the road, which can also have this left/right
> problem, so I don't think this is a specific problem for cycle tracks.
Why shall c/w suffe
> For now, I would advocate extra ways whereever the cycleway is not
> just a lane painted on the road, and editors might become smart enough
> to detect a bordering cycleway and move that together with the road if
> you move the road or so.
Please, avoid such "smartness"; some editor actions are
Ben Laenen wrote:
> I beg to differ here. When you have to tag cycleways belonging to a road
> not as "highway=whatever, cycleway=track" but as
> separate "highway=cycleway" they just become an editing mess,
> especially at intersections.
Yes, but this is also the reality for cyclists. Everyth
Bjørn Bürger schrieb:
> Yes, but this is also the reality for cyclists. Everything involving
> cycleways is actually a mess, unfortunately. That is, because a
> bicycle is (mostly) not seen as an equal means of transportation.
Being considered a fanatical biker by my friends as well I share that
b
Hi,
> > For now, I would advocate extra ways whereever the cycleway is not
> > just a lane painted on the road, and editors might become smart enough
> > to detect a bordering cycleway and move that together with the road if
> > you move the road or so.
>
> Please, avoid such "smartness"; some ed
Sven Grüner wrote:
> Being considered a fanatical biker by my friends as well I share that
> believe.
;-)
> This worked fine when focussing on car-traffic but when we really want
> to provide high-quility (usable for routing/navigation) data of footways
> and cycleways I'm afraid we need a differ
On 25/03/2008, Sven Grüner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bjørn Bürger schrieb:
>
> > Yes, but this is also the reality for cyclists. Everything involving
> > cycleways is actually a mess, unfortunately. That is, because a
> > bicycle is (mostly) not seen as an equal means of transportation.
>
>
>
OJ W wrote:
> Sounds very similar to the cycleway tagging in Bedford; treat it
> as a separate way if it's not on the road, which makes it easy
> to show if it takes detours away from the road:
But I want it to be just next to the street, with no gap and no
overlap, and getting this right requ
Lars Aronsson wrote:
>Sent: 25 March 2008 2:19 PM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes
>
>OJ W wrote:
>
>> Sounds very similar to the cycleway tagging in Bedford; treat it
>> as a separate way if it's not on the road, which makes it
Alex Mauer wrote:
> It also has the problem that ways can easily get reversed, and
> then the left/right meanings are backwards.
A bus stop is an attribute on a node (highway=bus_stop) in the
middle of a way. If I want to indicate that this bus stop is on
one side of the street, left and righ
Lars Aronsson skrev:
> Alex Mauer wrote:
>
>> It also has the problem that ways can easily get reversed, and
>> then the left/right meanings are backwards.
>
> A bus stop is an attribute on a node (highway=bus_stop) in the
> middle of a way. If I want to indicate that this bus stop is on
> on
J.D. Schmidt wrote:
> Lars Aronsson skrev:
>
>> Alex Mauer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It also has the problem that ways can easily get reversed, and
>>> then the left/right meanings are backwards.
>>>
>> A bus stop is an attribute on a node (highway=bus_stop) in the
>> middle of a way. If I
J.D. Schmidt wrote:
> It doesn't matter if the busstop is on the right or left side of
> the road... Neither OSM wise, nor in the real world. In the real
> world you use your eyes and see the busstop.
The same goes for oneway streets then. We don't have to indicate
which direction they go, be
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> J.D. Schmidt wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter if the busstop is on the right or left side of
>> the road... Neither OSM wise, nor in the real world. In the real
>> world you use your eyes and see the busstop.
> Of course it matters which side the bus stop is on. You don't
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
>> J.D. Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It doesn't matter if the busstop is on the right or left side of
>>> the road... Neither OSM wise, nor in the real world. In the real
>>> world you use your eyes and see the busstop.
>>>
>
>
>> Of
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Jo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> > Lars Aronsson wrote:
> >
> >> J.D. Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> It doesn't matter if the busstop is on the right or left side of
> >>> the road... Neither OSM wise, nor in the real world. In the real
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Aronsson wrote:
| A bus stop is an attribute on a node (highway=bus_stop) in the
| middle of a way. If I want to indicate that this bus stop is on
| one side of the street, left and right don't matter much, since
| there can be two ways both poin
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, I've googled a bit for images of cycleways to get an idea about when
> other people would tag a cycleway as a separate highway... (sorry, it's
> a bit of a Belgium-centric selection...)
[snip]
Excellent stuff. I muc
Interesting you should mention dual-carriageways -- there was some
discussion a while back:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Left/right_things
about how to "push things outwards" from road centrelines...
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Lars Aronsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
> Interesting you should mention dual-carriageways -- there was some
> discussion a while back:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Left/right_things
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I have put a paragaph on the
discussion page about why I strongly dislik
On Friday 28 March 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> I'd tag every one of those as highway=cycleway on a separate way, if
> I had the time and the patience. If I was busy, I would see
> cycleway=track as being a stop-gap, and someone else could model them
> as separate ways when they had the time (in the s
Andy Allan schrieb:
> I'd tag every one of those as highway=cycleway on a separate way, if I
> had the time and the patience. If I was busy, I would see
> cycleway=track as being a stop-gap, and someone else could model them
> as separate ways when they had the time (in the same way that there's
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Alex Mauer wrote:
> >
> > It also has the problem that ways can easily get reversed, and then
> > the left/right meanings are backwards.
>
> Then make editors change it automatically when reversing
Martin Vidner vidner.net> writes:
> Make the prefixes "left:", "right:" special in the sense that when a
> way is reversed, they get swapped.
> So left:highway=bus_stop would become right:highway=bus_stop.
> (Uh, maybe this is awkward for the renderer implementation. Could be
> better to prefix t
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Vidner vidner.net> writes:
>
> > Make the prefixes "left:", "right:" special in the sense that when a
> > way is reversed, they get swapped.
> > So left:highway=bus_stop would become right:highway=bus_stop.
> > (U
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:41 AM, David Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Vidner vidner.net> writes:
>
> > Make the prefixes "left:", "right:" special in the sense that when a
> > way is reversed, they get swapped.
> > So left:highway=bus_stop would become right:highway=bus_stop.
> > (Uh, m
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can I suggest that the vehicle oneway=yes/no attribute should be able to
> take an additional value of 'reverse' to make all the tags independent of
> the direction of the way and avoid the need to reverse ways at all.
all the side streets and to allow 'casing colour'
> style maps to be created. I am requesting that they publish the standard so
> we can compare and contrast and will let you know when it becomes available.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter Miller
>
&
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can I suggest that the vehicle oneway=yes/no attribute should be able to
> take an additional value of 'reverse' to make all the tags independent of
> the direction of the way and avoid the need to reverse ways at all.
El Lunes, 31 de Marzo de 2008, Andy Allan escribió:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Can I suggest that the vehicle oneway=yes/no attribute should be able to
> > take an additional value of 'reverse' to make all the tags independent
> > of the direct
Karl Newman wrote:
> I don't know why everyone's opposed to left/right. It's unambiguous,
> and properly structured it would not be difficult for
> editors to accommodate it.
Hmm, IMO neither north/south, nor left/right are a good solution for
this problem. The only clean solution would be a re
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Bjørn Bürger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Karl Newman wrote:
> > I don't know why everyone's opposed to left/right. It's unambiguous,
> > and properly structured it would not be difficult for
> > editors to accommodate it.
>
> Hmm, IMO neither north/south, nor lef
Karl Newman wrote:
> You still haven't solved the left/right problem. For example, house
> numbers are commonly even on one side and odd on the other.
Not in Braunschweig: Many of our streets are numbered this way:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - [...] - 131
== \
[...] 136 - 135
Excuse me while I but in...
I'd agree that Left/right doesn't feel like the right solution - I've
got a different idea for a solution which doesn't seem to have been
suggested.
For me the whole problem comes down to the fact that in the current
representation there is no concept of a WIDTH of a w
As part of improving the wiki pages on UK tagging guidelines, I wanted to
add details about cycle lanes and cycle tracks. As seen in this mailing
list, I quickly got confused. I want to take this opportunity to share my
findings.
1. "cycleway" key.
I found the current cycleway key to be confusing
2012/5/21 Rob Nickerson :
> p.s. Personally I feel that cycle TRACKS would be much easier to map if
> drawn as a separate highway=cycleway (despite any challenges the renderers
> and routers currently have with this) - it just makes things a lot easier!!
+1, it is also more consistent and simple
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/5/21 Rob Nickerson:
p.s. Personally I feel that cycle TRACKS would be much easier to map if
drawn as a separate highway=cycleway (despite any challenges the renderers
and routers currently have with this) - it just makes things a lot easier!!
+1, it is also more
On 22/05/12 12:13, Lester Caine wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2012/5/21 Rob Nickerson:
>>> p.s. Personally I feel that cycle TRACKS would be much easier to map if
>>> drawn as a separate highway=cycleway (despite any challenges the
>>> renderers
>>> and routers currently have with this) -
2012/5/22 colliar
>
> The major problem I have with splitting cycleways of the highway is the
> missing reference to the highway. In Germany you have to use a cycleway
> by law (with some exceptions) and if the cycleway and the highway are
> mapped as two highways I do not get the information if
colliar wrote:
On 22/05/12 12:13, Lester Caine wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2012/5/21 Rob Nickerson:
>>> p.s. Personally I feel that cycle TRACKS would be much easier to map if
>>> drawn as a separate highway=cycleway (despite any challenges the
>>> renderers
>>> and routers cu
2012/5/22 Janko Mihelić :
> 2012/5/22 colliar
>> The major problem I have with splitting cycleways of the highway is the
>> missing reference to the highway. In Germany you have to use a cycleway
>> by law (with some exceptions) and if the cycleway and the highway are
>> mapped as two highways I d
p.s. Personally I feel that cycle TRACKS would be much easier to map
if drawn as a separate highway=cycleway (despite any challenges the
renderers and routers currently have with this) - it just makes things
a lot easier!!
No, no,no,no
As for changing the cycleway key values:
If
Am 25.05.2012 um 10:20 schrieb Felix Hartmann :
>> p.s. Personally I feel that cycle TRACKS would be much easier to map if
>> drawn as a separate highway=cycleway
>>
> No, no,no,no
>
> If we want to change it, then we should
> a) wait for the editors to support proper lane mapping
He
Thanks Martin,
Yes, exactly right; I spent the time to do my research and also wrote up a
brief introduction to cycle "tracks" vs "lanes". As suggested this has now
been moved to the 'tagging' mailing list so feel free to follow the topic
there. I'm a little concerned at how much the scope has wid
66 matches
Mail list logo
