On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Evan Sebire wrote:
> A complicated solution would be to have user options similar to non-web
> applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have bicycle = yes tag. The
> current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other properties such as fuel,
> bbq, motel etc. The renderi
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:30:02 +0200
Evan Sebire wrote:
> Maybe slightly off-topic but does the current rendering engine obey the width
> parameter? I wanted to fix up a river that is in some parts 10m wide and
> others 100m. Would setting the width be the correct way to make it render
> bette
On Thursday 06 Aug 2009 10:13:47 John Smith wrote:
> --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote:
> > A complicated solution would be to have user options
> > similar to non-web
> > applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have
> > bicycle = yes tag. The
> > current cycle map is good but tick-bo
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote:
> A complicated solution would be to have user options
> similar to non-web
> applications. Tick-box to emphasise paths that have
> bicycle = yes tag. The
> current cycle map is good but tick-boxes for other
> properties such as fuel,
> bbq, motel etc.
On Thursday 06 Aug 2009 09:21:59 John Smith wrote:
> --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote:
> > I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so
> > they display
> > correctly with the current limitations of a rendering
> > algorithm.
>
> What limitation? :)
>
> We're currently in the pro
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote:
> I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so
> they display
> correctly with the current limitations of a rendering
> algorithm.
What limitation? :)
We're currently in the process of defining how things render how we choose, we
just need t
I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so they display
correctly with the current limitations of a rendering algorithm.
When reading the main wiki
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway ) I understand the
definition of cycleway to mean bicycle only paths or pat
Noted.
As far as I'm aware, all railtrails are designed predominantly for bicycle
use. This is a reflection of both the distances usually involved and the users
they attract. I do see the occasional walker on a railtrail, and these, horse
riders and wheelchair users are also encouraged to use
I would have thought that the tag highway=path would be more appropriate.
After that follow what is in the wiki guidelines. I don't think we should
necessarily appeal to the majority/minority on a particular path, but describe
its properties.
I was labelling many hiking paths as footway but have
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Henderson wrote:
> I expect to be mapping some of these sooner or later. I note that
> there's no
>
> highway=
>
> tag given at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Rail_Trail
>s
>
> Is this intentional? Or an oversight?
>
> I'd expect
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, John Henderson wrote:
> Is this intentional? Or an oversight?
That's only a guide for specific things, the main map features should be
checked first.
> I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the
> "bicycle=yes" tag
> redundant.
If you mean what I think you m
I expect to be mapping some of these sooner or later. I note that
there's no
highway=
tag given at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Rail_Trails
Is this intentional? Or an oversight?
I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the "bicycle=yes" ta
12 matches
Mail list logo
