Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too. I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not looking at the examples. highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by definition. I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in the description of the value? Yours Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
If I understand correctly you say it would be better if the wiki stated that the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are right. I could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has changed the wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email before I make any changes. Cheers PeeWee32 2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too. I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not looking at the examples. highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by definition. I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in the description of the value? Yours Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap http://www.openstreetmap.org. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
Thanks a lot, and yes You understood me correctly. Regards Hubert From: Pee Wee [mailto:piewi...@gmail.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Oktober 2014 12:48 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page If I understand correctly you say it would be better if the wiki stated that the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are right. I could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has changed the wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email before I make any changes. Cheers PeeWee32 2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too. I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not looking at the examples. highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by definition. I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in the description of the value? Yours Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap http://www.openstreetmap.org . ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
Hi, May be you could link to cycleway:mandatory, too. Which would give a reference to the analog usage if there is cycleway=* used on the road. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway But I do not know whether there is a proposition page for cycleway:mandatory. So maybe this tag should be proposed before. Cheers Tobias Am 08.10.2014 um 12:48 schrieb Pee Wee: If I understand correctly you say it would be better if the wiki stated that the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are right. I could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has changed the wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email before I make any changes. Cheers PeeWee32 2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too. I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not looking at the examples. highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by definition. I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in the description of the value? Yours Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
It is perfectly fine to revert somebody. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle 2014-10-08 12:48 GMT+02:00 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com: If I understand correctly you say it would be better if the wiki stated that the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are right. I could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has changed the wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email before I make any changes. Cheers PeeWee32 2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too. I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not looking at the examples. highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by definition. I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in the description of the value? Yours Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap http://www.openstreetmap.org. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
I''ll wait till the edit war is over before I make any changes. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepathaction=history Apparently it is very difficult to discuss prior to making changes. Cheers PeeWee32 2014-10-08 14:18 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: It is perfectly fine to revert somebody. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle 2014-10-08 12:48 GMT+02:00 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com: If I understand correctly you say it would be better if the wiki stated that the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are right. I could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has changed the wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email before I make any changes. Cheers PeeWee32 2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too. I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not looking at the examples. highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by definition. I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in the description of the value? Yours Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap http://www.openstreetmap.org. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap http://www.openstreetmap.org. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
