2009/12/14 Steve Bennett :
> Yeah. I don't think the slope is all that slippery. Lots of stuff is
What I meant is, storing this type of information in meta data could
end up being a dumping ground for a lot of things beyond simple
differences between whatever is considered the most common.
__
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
> This is where meta information stored in state/country boundaries
> could be useful, although that in itself could be a slippery slope of
> storing too much data in meta lookup tables essentially...
Yeah. I don't think the slope is all that sl
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> 2009/12/14 Steve Bennett :
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> >> And can I again please direct you to:
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
> >>
> >> If you want to find a resolut
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett :
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> And can I again please direct you to:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
>>
>> If you want to find a resolution to the footway/cycleway/path thing,
>> please contribute your t
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> And can I again please direct you to:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
>
> If you want to find a resolution to the footway/cycleway/path thing,
> please contribute your thoughts there.
My feeling is that
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Liz wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Liz wrote:
>> we're having another discussion about this same point concurrently on
>> t...@openstreetmap.org
>> and making a number of suggestions there
>> care to join in?
> bum steer
> tagg...@openstreetmap.org
And can I again
Hi.
I guess the rendering could use some enhancement in that case. I know the
cycle layer only renders ways differently that have cycleway, when perhaps
they could have a rendering for non-car ways that have (or imply)
bicycle=yes as well.
Most printed maps for cyclists I have seen only different
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009, Ben Kelley wrote:
> I would have thought the routing should be based on the bicycle=yes
> (explicit or implied).
>
> Ben.
>
And if the router is the one in a human brain reading a printed map how does
it know that /this/ red dotted line takes bikes by design, and that /this/
Ben Kelley wrote:
> I would have thought the routing should be based on the bicycle=yes (explicit
> or implied).
It certainly is on the routable Garmin cycling maps that I make.
But I take the liberty of colouring the route a little differently for
highway=footway and highway=cycleway. And I
I would have thought the routing should be based on the bicycle=yes (explicit
or implied).
Ben.
-Original Message-
From: Liz
Sent: Saturday, 12 December 2009 19:43
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
I've just put a lot of definitions on the
Liz wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, John Henderson wrote:
> without changing any of the track/cycleway/path stuff
> mark a shared path as highway=cycleway
> because then they are visible as cycleways to the renderer and to the router.
> the presence of a painted line down the middle of the track is
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, John Henderson wrote:
> Liz wrote:
> > I've just put a lot of definitions on the wiki stolen from (and
> > attributed to) the Australian Road Rules
> > concerning the various types of footpaths and bicycle paths and lanes
> >
> > We have "Shared Path" to be tagged 'footway' wit
Liz wrote:
> I've just put a lot of definitions on the wiki stolen from (and attributed
> to)
> the Australian Road Rules
> concerning the various types of footpaths and bicycle paths and lanes
>
> We have "Shared Path" to be tagged 'footway' with bicycle=yes
>
> I'd like to suggest that a sha
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Liz wrote:
> we're having another discussion about this same point concurrently on
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> and making a number of suggestions there
> care to join in?
bum steer
tagg...@openstreetmap.org
___
Talk-au mailing list
T
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Evan Sebire wrote:
> Why are we still using cycleway/footway, please describe only the
> properties of the path. If the routing/rendering software is dumb/simple
> that doesn't mean we must be!
> The tags for describing paths properties are fairly stable and that is what
> the
Why are we still using cycleway/footway, please describe only the properties
of the path. If the routing/rendering software is dumb/simple that doesn't
mean we must be!
The tags for describing paths properties are fairly stable and that is what
the software should be using. Smoothness, width,
I've just put a lot of definitions on the wiki stolen from (and attributed to)
the Australian Road Rules
concerning the various types of footpaths and bicycle paths and lanes
We have "Shared Path" to be tagged 'footway' with bicycle=yes
I'd like to suggest that a shared path has been designed fo
17 matches
Mail list logo
