Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Jakka wrote: > Very interesting. > Something that seems easy and used from the early days of OSM is sensitive > for personal interpret. > Good link: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_lanes_in_ > oneway_motor_car_roads > image with possible tag ne

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Marc Gemis schreef op 12/11/2014 om 5:34: On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM, André Pirard mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>> wrote: e) the word "fuzzy" is removed from OSM, at least for routing, that is. Could you be less fuzzy ? :-) and please list the actions one could take to remove "fuzz

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM, André Pirard wrote: > e) the word "fuzzy" is removed from OSM, at least for routing, that is. Could you be less fuzzy ? :-) and please list the actions one could take to remove "fuzzy" from OSM? regards m ___ Talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On 2014-11-11 19:40, Glenn Plas wrote : > Andre, > > In case you look for more routers, try this one. It's very fast, I > consider it a light weight one. > > There still work to be done on it, not perfect but worth diving into it. > > http://www.routino.org > > Glenn > > On 11-11-14 19:16, Marc Ge

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Andre, In case you look for more routers, try this one. It's very fast, I consider it a light weight one. There still work to be done on it, not perfect but worth diving into it. http://www.routino.org Glenn On 11-11-14 19:16, Marc Gemis wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM, André Pira

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM, André Pirard wrote: > Wonderful router you're showing. Does it use often updated data? I thought the routing data was updated daily, the map is updated more frequent. Remember that this router does not honor turn restrictions at this moment. In case you want to

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Jakka, please do not use ways to represent lanes. The Moeskroenstraat coming from the east (before the roundabout) should not be split until you see the white divider at the last moment. Before that it should be tagged as lanes=2, turn:lanes=none|slight_right or through|slight_right I have been c

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On 2014-11-11 17:57, Glenn Plas wrote : > ... > > > That's exactly why we talking next to eachother. Jakka worked on it, I > did a few fixes + validation. Then I fixed my own mistakes in fixing Yes, that reminds me - look at that mistake - I don't see any - that's because I corrected it Yes,

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Hi, highway=cycleway is distinct from another highway=* and uses its own distinct oneway=* oneway bicycle exceptions in the same highway are described here . The mapping of cycleway=* alongside a oneway highway=* is described here

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

2 problems: You're not checking the roundabout I think we were talking about. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.78823/3.14081 Check in JOSM for the latest data. The tiles do not get regenerated at the changeset rate. It will take some time to proliferate. That's exactly why we talking

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

I noticed my misinterpretation myself indeed - after the facts. My bad. I wasn't claiming that oneway=yes doesn't apply to cyclists, I was saying that the 'wegcode' actually allows bicycles to use the cycleway in the opposite direction. <- and that was totally wrong after deeper researching. So

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On 2014-11-11 16:49, Gilbert Hersschens wrote : > @André: pls read again (you provided the link yourself): Some tags > (such as junction > =roundabout > , highway >

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Glenn, ik zie nergens een cycleway op http://osm.org/go/0EgP1kjK2?m=&way=109638123 ? (ook n iet in JOSM) 2014-11-11 14:52 GMT+01:00 Glenn Plas : > Gilbert, > > Dit is geen discussie over de wegcode maar over de betekenis van tags en > het resultaat ervan. Het intereseert me zelfs niet wat de

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

@André: pls read again (you provided the link yourself): Some tags (such as junction =roundabout , highway =motorway

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On Tuesday 11 November 2014 14:51:07 Glenn Plas wrote: > Sorry but oneway=yes just means you can only drive in the direction of > the way. It has nothing to do with going opposite. Yeah, sorry, used a wrong word there after I rewrote that sentence. Should have been: "No, it's the opposite: onew

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

This is actually quite interesting road to dive in deeper. I notice a few problems with this roundabout. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26707718#map=19/50.78871/3.13953 There is no connection between Moeskroenstraat en the cycleway. This would pop up when Validating changes before up

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Gilbert, Dit is geen discussie over de wegcode maar over de betekenis van tags en het resultaat ervan. Het intereseert me zelfs niet wat de wegcode ervan vindt in het kader van deze materie. Ik heb het dus niet over de wegcode maar over de betekenis van de keys. Laat dit duidelijk zijn dat hie

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Sorry but oneway=yes just means you can only drive in the direction of the way. It has nothing to do with going opposite. I quote: "The oneway tag is used to indicate the access restriction on highways and other linear features as appropriate." So it's an access restriction. On highway=cycleway

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On Tuesday 11 November 2014 13:12:15 Glenn Plas wrote: > I think the correct key is : > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle > > Since it is standard to allow bicycles to use both direction, also in a > one-way street it's allowed unless specifically restricted. No, it's the o

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

On 2014-11-11 11:41, Jakka wrote : > Tried out route planner for bikes and saw in my region that the > planner takes the wrong side of the road. > > https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=50.788276%2C3.133957&point=Kortrijkstraat%2C%208930%2C%20Menin%2C%20Belgium&vehicle=bike&elevation=true&layer=Lyr

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Moet een bug in de route planner zijn. OSM vermeldt dat ronde punten impliciet éénrichtingsstraten zijn: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout (definitie: A roundabout is a *one-way* street with *right-of-way* and a *non-traversable

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

I think the correct key is : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle Since it is standard to allow bicycles to use both direction, also in a one-way street it's allowed unless specifically restricted. Glenn On 11-11-14 11:41, Jakka wrote: > > > Tried out route planner for bikes

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

This roundabout was already in the sytem with all the details separated footway, cycle way, highway. hope better link. (How taken a link of josm screen ? permalink?) https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=50.788276%2C3.133957&point=50.794787%2C3.137348&vehicle=bike&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk Marc

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cycleways tag as oneway=yes ?

Weird, I always thought that you do not have to add oneway=yes to a roundabout, in case it is tagged as junction=roundabout. For the route you specified, I don't see any separately drawn cycleways. Anyway, do not forget to tag the main road with bicycle=use_sidepath in such case. And to properly c