Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
"Andy Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I disagree - I think the default should be undefined. +1 I always add foot and bicycle values and I never rely hidden assumptions. Without a certain amount of redundantencies, all this is OSM tagging is much too fragile. Thus I often add bicycle=yes to highway=cycleway; it happens once in a while that you change "cycleway" to "footway" and forget to add the bicycle=yes tag... Also in Germany, the majority of cycleways are allowed for pedestrians. Z237 without an additional sign such occurs less often than Z240 or Z241 (though Z241 signals a bicycle only lane, but in reality this des not actually work ;) ): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zeichen_237.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zeichen_240.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zeichen_241.svg -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
On Thursday 03 July 2008 20:50:22 Florian Lohoff wrote: > So if it really implies "foot=yes" the bottom example is bogus and the > sign at the top right is bogus. You forgot to add: in Germany. The exact same sign is used in the Netherlands. Here it depends on the rest of the road layout wether you are allowed to walk on the cycleway or not. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] www.OpenRouteService.org now supports Bicycle Routing with OSM Data
Hi List, www.OpenRouteService.org now supports Bicycle Routing with OSM Data www.OpenRouteService.org (ORS) offers not only pedestrian and fastest and shortes routing based on the OpenGIS Open Location Service specifications (OGC OpenLS), but also bicycle routing for the whole of Germany. The OpenStreetMap data needs to be preprocessed a big deal in order to calculate a topological street network valid for routing. This processing generates currently about 2 million street segements for Germany (from originally about 900.000 streets). The routing is now based on the A-star algorithm and which improved the performance in spite of the increasing data. Further extensions are in work and planned. Currently the following keys are used for car routing: - highway with value = motorway, motorway_link, trunk, trunk_link, primary, primary_link, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, residential, service/access=yes and living_street - motorcar=yes/no - oneway - junction Currently the following keys are used for pedestrian routing: - highway with value = all car highway values (without motorway/-link), track, service, bridleway, cycleway, footway, pedestrian and steps - foot=yes/no Currently the following keys are used for bycycle routing: - highway with value = all car highway values (without motorway/-link), track, service, bridleway, cycleway, pedestrian and footway - bicycle=yes/no - work in progress: tracktype Of course there are other combinations and possbilities and we are evaluating those, but this shall serve as a first start ... We are interested in your feedback! So far the service is restricted to Germany only, we will add more later. Cheers pascal ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google sat images in JOSM
Very cool, thanks for the link Igor Stephan Schildberg wrote: You might watch it... Don't infringe copyrights. http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=3&lat=43.45292&lon=-6.5918&layers=B000TFFF The slider in the upper right corner allows you to switch the intensity of the GoogleMaps- or OSM-layer. regards, Stephan. Is there any way to view Google sat images at OSM? The Landsat coverage of my area is in very low resolution. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- http://igorbrejc.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 05:29:06PM +0100, Andy Allan wrote: > If it's on a per-country basis, I don't mind - that's doable with some > maths. If the default applies > 90% of the time, then that's fine too. > The point that I get concerned about is if it's A 55% of the time and > B 45% of the time and someone says that A should be default. > > So if the consensus is that it's almost always foot=yes (certainly is > from my experience, to the 98th percentile) then we should go with > that. And if it's just Germany that's different, then we can deal with > that too. I dont really care what the default is as long as the wiki page is very clear about it. Currently it says "implies: foot=yes" which does not match the sign shown in the top right corner. Again it lists an example with the sign telling foot/bicycle share the path and explicitly says "foot=yes" which should be unnecessary as this is already implied. So if it really implies "foot=yes" the bottom example is bogus and the sign at the top right is bogus. If it does imply "foot=no" it should say so in the right "implies:" section. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagwatch for europe
Yes, I like also the 1 buildinge, the 3 buildings, the 2 buildingy, the 1 buildng, the 4 buildning, the 1 buildong, the 3 builduing, the 18 (!) buildung, the 1 builing, the 2 buillding. Pieren On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Etric, Thank you very much for this and continuing to work on it. > > It may be that working in UNIX Operating System > debugging for a few years has turned my brain > peculiar, but I certainly find it fascinating > browsing through the tags folks have been using. > http://etricceline.de/osm/Europe/En/tags.htm > > It is certainly turning into a very useful > adjunct to the Map Features proposal process > (sorry, Frederick, adjunct not replacement :-) > ). The building= tag, stalled as a proposal, has > developed a fairly finite coherent set of values > just by being used. I've used 'palace' twice and > notice that up to 38 other people have thought of exactly the same thing. > > building= > yes (100873), residential (2027), detached > (1876), apartments (1362), block (912), true > (572), university (502), school (324), warehouse > (317), hall (311), barn (268), building (210), > commercial (208), farm (182), house (177), > industrial (174), hospital (171), flats (156), > garages (150), retail (142), church (131), store > (125), public (112), train_station (109), semi > (107), office (106), castle (98), supermarket > (94), terrace (88), garage (83), tower (80), > city_hall (70), stadium (69), station (67), hotel > (57), museum (55), glasshouse (52), shop (49), > place_of_worship (46), recreation (45), palace > (40), hall_of_residence (39), bunker (37), > factory (36), shed (36), wall (33), appartments > (29), stables (27), prison (26), pavillion (26) > > Also, > > building:use= > residental (109), residential (95), > education (22), offices (21), office (14), > Residential (14), flat (13), Hospital (11), sport > (11), Retail (8), shop (8), retail (6), Flat (6), > commercial (5), Parking (5), association (5), > parking (4), Office (4), Leisure (2), Residental > (1), industrial (1), education;partying (1), > Pavillion (1), Offices (1), supermarket (1), > garage (1), Factory (1), offices;retail (1), > Medical Research (1), Shop (1), Recreation (1), > school (1), manse (1), exhibition hall (1), > Commercial (1), bus_garage (1), warehouse (1) > > building:type= > apartments (157), Hangar (61), greenhouse (38), > residential (29), fuel_station (23), commercial > (15), tank (14), fuel_station_shop (14), House > (8), house (7), supermarket (5), Complex (5), > toll_booth (5), fuelstation (4), restaurant (3), > mall (3), hall (3), wall (2), y (2), stadium (2), > Station (2), dam (2), church (2), school (2), > fuelstation_payhouse (1), fuelstationshop (1), > ruins (1), Monument (1), tower (1), prison (1), > garage (1), toll booth (1), fire_station (1), > Skyscraper (1), radome (1), swimming (1), > doityourself (1), library (1), hangar (1), > Industrial (1), shop (1), train_station (1), Mall > (1), fountain (1), gymnastics (1) > > > Mike > > > At 12:30 AM 7/2/2008, Etric Celine wrote: > >Hi Everyone > > > >I used Frederik's Europe excerpt to generate statistics with the Tagwatch > >Script. > > > >see: > >http://etricceline.de/osm/Europe/En/index.htm > > > >The site is available in English and the other languages are uploading > right > >now. > > > >Some of the changes I've made on the script: > > > >* better output result for all tag statistics > >* statistics are available for every Key that is mentioned on the > Key: > >or Map Feature pages > >* The script now generate statistics for the used Relations > >* Some general statistics are available about the used tags and their > >documentation status in the Wiki > > > >In the "near" future some other things will follow: > >* support for Tag pages that are just redirects > >(see oneway=yes as example) to > >get the documentation of this tags as well > >* some more general statistics that compare > >several single osm files with each > >other (make it possible to see which Europe country has more "possible > >tagging errors") > > > >I will update the script in the svn as soon as i have finished all the > things > >i like to change. > > > >Hopefully in the future the Tagwatch script can be a great help to > >find "possible tagging errors" or allows a small overview about > >what "undocumented tags are widely used and thus help to solve the chaos > on > >the "proposal pages". > > > >Some nice things from the Europe excerpt: > >* 3.584 different keys are in use > >* they are used in combination with 18.881 different tags > >* 124 different relations can be found in Europe > >* and we found 16 different ways to write the multipolygon relation wrong > >* we used 3.838.091 the highway tag > >* 114.314 buildings are listed in Europe > >* 113.577 bridges and 21.440 tunnel > >* Furthermore we have 427 "differend kinds" of sports > > > >Cheers > >Jörg > > > >
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
Andy Allan wrote: > The point that I get concerned about is if it's A 55% of the time and > B 45% of the time and someone says that A should be default. I still see it as an overall advantage if only 45% of ways must have that additional tag, vs. 100%. It's unfortunate that rather than requiring all of the users to place an extra tag 45% of the time, it actually shifts the burden so that a regional 45% of the users must use the extra tag approximately 98% of the time. If it were even across all users it would be much more acceptable. But I still think that it's better than requiring 100% of users to add an extra tag 100% of the time. I like the idea of having country-specific implications/assumptions, but I don't really see a good way to document that. Any suggestions? -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know Andy disagrees with this, and I can see his point about foot=yes > being wrong for some countries -- but I think it's better to have a > default so it's easier to make assumptions about routing, than to > require that all cycleways be tagged with an additional foot=* tag. If it's on a per-country basis, I don't mind - that's doable with some maths. If the default applies > 90% of the time, then that's fine too. The point that I get concerned about is if it's A 55% of the time and B 45% of the time and someone says that A should be default. So if the consensus is that it's almost always foot=yes (certainly is from my experience, to the 98th percentile) then we should go with that. And if it's just Germany that's different, then we can deal with that too. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
William Waites wrote: > Possibly it is better to remove implication relationships amongst tags. I doubt it. I think it is safe for highway=cycleway to imply bicycle=yes and motorcar=no, and for highway=motorway to imply foot=no, horse=no and bicycle=no. These are "obviously correct" assumptions, as they are part of the definition of the cycleway, or the motorway. So I think some implications are quite important, as they indicate some tags which it is unnecessary to apply. (I certainly don't feel like tagging oneway=no on most everything, for example). > Cycling is one thing, appropriateness of feet is another, no? There are basically 3 options: Imply foot=yes (and several equivalents) Imply foot=no No implication I feel that leaving it with no implication is a bad idea, because someone wishing to rely on the OSM data for a routing app will need to have a default for it anyway, either to route foot traffic along a cycleway, or not. So OSM might as well indicate which should be assumed. Of course, it would be possible to put an additional foot=* tag on every cycleway, but I think it's better to do this in only half (or less) of the cases, than to have to do it everywhere. That leaves us with yes or no. For the (OSM) definition of a highway=cycleway, it says "mainly or exclusively for bicycles" -- foot=yes would apply to those which are "mainly" for bicycles, while foot=no would apply to those which are "exclusively" for bicycles. The best assumption is the one which applies in the largest number of cases. I think that would be foot=yes. I know Andy disagrees with this, and I can see his point about foot=yes being wrong for some countries -- but I think it's better to have a default so it's easier to make assumptions about routing, than to require that all cycleways be tagged with an additional foot=* tag. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 03:53:40PM +0100, Andy Allan wrote: > > ... but to be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with it, and I > still think the lane/lane_opposite doesn't handle things fully either. > I found a bit in Hyde Park where there was a one-way road with cycle > lanes on both sides - with all three lanes going in the same direction > - and I don't know how to model that in OSM either. Oxford's Donnington Bridge has in different sections <-> Pavement <-> Pavement -> Cycle lane -> Cycle lane <- Cycle lane <- Cycle lane -- -> Cycle lane -> Main carriageway -> Main carriageway <- Main carriageway <- Main carriageway <- Cycle lane <- Cycle lane -- <-> Pavement <-> Pavement Where indicates a kerb. I'm afraid my ascii art isn't up to describing how they join, but be assured it doesn't involve car drivers having to make last minute decisions at speed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
On Thursday 03 July 2008, Andy Allan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I certainly agree that the default for foot access should be one or > > the other for highway=cycleway. > > > > My own preference is for default foot=yes. > > I disagree - I think the default should be undefined. After all, it's > been undefined for a while, and I don't like hidden assumptions that > will be wrong for entire countries. Then let the countries decide their default access rules? It's the same as trunk roads where the default access rules don't allow pedestrian or bicycle access while in other countries they are allowed. Anyway, I've mentioned the issue already at my access restrictions brainstorming page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Access_restrictions#Country_specific_rules the past week. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
At 04:53 PM 7/3/2008, Andy Allan wrote: >On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I certainly agree that the default for foot access should be one or > > the other for highway=cycleway. > > > > My own preference is for default foot=yes. > >I disagree - I think the default should be undefined. After all, it's >been undefined for a while, and I don't like hidden assumptions that >will be wrong for entire countries. Yes, I see your point. A lot of my thinking centres around ease of data entry and the fact that when a lot of tags have to be entered, folks ... don't. I take a default as a reasonable but not certain assumption. I wonder what our routing fraternity has to say. >I've been asked by a cycling group how they should be marking shared >vs segregated, so how about > >highway=cycleway, cycleway = shared - both bikes and pedestrians >sharing the same path, common in the UK. Has the blue sign with the >bike over the pedestrians. >highway=cycleway, cycleway = segregated - the path has a line down the >middle, cyclists on one side, pedestrians on the other >highway=cycleway, cycleway = cycleonly - bikes only, like the >default in Germany I'd support that. One practical data entry question. If I haven't noted whether it is shared or segregated, go back to cycleway=track, foot=yes ... or? Tracks often switch from one to the other frequently. >... but to be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with it, and I >still think the lane/lane_opposite doesn't handle things fully either. >I found a bit in Hyde Park where there was a one-way road with cycle >lanes on both sides - with all three lanes going in the same direction >- and I don't know how to model that in OSM either. Well, I've commented on the rest, so let me take a stab. cycleway=lane. Does it matter that there happen to be two such lanes and their position? Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
Andy Allan wrote: > I found a bit in Hyde Park where there was a one-way road with cycle > lanes on both sides - with all three lanes going in the same direction > - and I don't know how to model that in OSM either. My experience from a year of cycle-commuting through Hyde Park is that cycleway=chaos will do nicely. Especially if you add skateboard=yes. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagwatch for europe
Etric, Thank you very much for this and continuing to work on it. It may be that working in UNIX Operating System debugging for a few years has turned my brain peculiar, but I certainly find it fascinating browsing through the tags folks have been using. http://etricceline.de/osm/Europe/En/tags.htm It is certainly turning into a very useful adjunct to the Map Features proposal process (sorry, Frederick, adjunct not replacement :-) ). The building= tag, stalled as a proposal, has developed a fairly finite coherent set of values just by being used. I've used 'palace' twice and notice that up to 38 other people have thought of exactly the same thing. building= yes (100873), residential (2027), detached (1876), apartments (1362), block (912), true (572), university (502), school (324), warehouse (317), hall (311), barn (268), building (210), commercial (208), farm (182), house (177), industrial (174), hospital (171), flats (156), garages (150), retail (142), church (131), store (125), public (112), train_station (109), semi (107), office (106), castle (98), supermarket (94), terrace (88), garage (83), tower (80), city_hall (70), stadium (69), station (67), hotel (57), museum (55), glasshouse (52), shop (49), place_of_worship (46), recreation (45), palace (40), hall_of_residence (39), bunker (37), factory (36), shed (36), wall (33), appartments (29), stables (27), prison (26), pavillion (26) Also, building:use= residental (109), residential (95), education (22), offices (21), office (14), Residential (14), flat (13), Hospital (11), sport (11), Retail (8), shop (8), retail (6), Flat (6), commercial (5), Parking (5), association (5), parking (4), Office (4), Leisure (2), Residental (1), industrial (1), education;partying (1), Pavillion (1), Offices (1), supermarket (1), garage (1), Factory (1), offices;retail (1), Medical Research (1), Shop (1), Recreation (1), school (1), manse (1), exhibition hall (1), Commercial (1), bus_garage (1), warehouse (1) building:type= apartments (157), Hangar (61), greenhouse (38), residential (29), fuel_station (23), commercial (15), tank (14), fuel_station_shop (14), House (8), house (7), supermarket (5), Complex (5), toll_booth (5), fuelstation (4), restaurant (3), mall (3), hall (3), wall (2), y (2), stadium (2), Station (2), dam (2), church (2), school (2), fuelstation_payhouse (1), fuelstationshop (1), ruins (1), Monument (1), tower (1), prison (1), garage (1), toll booth (1), fire_station (1), Skyscraper (1), radome (1), swimming (1), doityourself (1), library (1), hangar (1), Industrial (1), shop (1), train_station (1), Mall (1), fountain (1), gymnastics (1) Mike At 12:30 AM 7/2/2008, Etric Celine wrote: >Hi Everyone > >I used Frederik's Europe excerpt to generate statistics with the Tagwatch >Script. > >see: >http://etricceline.de/osm/Europe/En/index.htm > >The site is available in English and the other languages are uploading right >now. > >Some of the changes I've made on the script: > >* better output result for all tag statistics >* statistics are available for every Key that is mentioned on the Key: >or Map Feature pages >* The script now generate statistics for the used Relations >* Some general statistics are available about the used tags and their >documentation status in the Wiki > >In the "near" future some other things will follow: >* support for Tag pages that are just redirects >(see oneway=yes as example) to >get the documentation of this tags as well >* some more general statistics that compare >several single osm files with each >other (make it possible to see which Europe country has more "possible >tagging errors") > >I will update the script in the svn as soon as i have finished all the things >i like to change. > >Hopefully in the future the Tagwatch script can be a great help to >find "possible tagging errors" or allows a small overview about >what "undocumented tags are widely used and thus help to solve the chaos on >the "proposal pages". > >Some nice things from the Europe excerpt: >* 3.584 different keys are in use >* they are used in combination with 18.881 different tags >* 124 different relations can be found in Europe >* and we found 16 different ways to write the multipolygon relation wrong >* we used 3.838.091 the highway tag >* 114.314 buildings are listed in Europe >* 113.577 bridges and 21.440 tunnel >* Furthermore we have 427 "differend kinds" of sports > >Cheers >Jörg > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I certainly agree that the default for foot access should be one or > the other for highway=cycleway. > > My own preference is for default foot=yes. I disagree - I think the default should be undefined. After all, it's been undefined for a while, and I don't like hidden assumptions that will be wrong for entire countries. I've been asked by a cycling group how they should be marking shared vs segregated, so how about highway=cycleway, cycleway = shared - both bikes and pedestrians sharing the same path, common in the UK. Has the blue sign with the bike over the pedestrians. highway=cycleway, cycleway = segregated - the path has a line down the middle, cyclists on one side, pedestrians on the other highway=cycleway, cycleway = cycleonly - bikes only, like the default in Germany ... but to be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with it, and I still think the lane/lane_opposite doesn't handle things fully either. I found a bit in Hyde Park where there was a one-way road with cycle lanes on both sides - with all three lanes going in the same direction - and I don't know how to model that in OSM either. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
On Thursday 03 July 2008 16:31:00 Michael Collinson wrote: > > In Sweden, paths I've seen are either unsigned or when signed, > overwhelming with a blue sign for both cycle and foot. Cycle-only > paths are rare, and when I find them, I add foot=no. I wonder if > that is true for Germany and the Netherlands too? In Germany (Berlin at least) you're likely to get angrily belled at if you stray into the cycle path as a pedestrian. Virtually all cycle paths are this way, and there are quite a lot of them (most major streets). That said, I am not aware of a case where there are cycle-only paths with no adjacent footpath or sidewalk. Possibly it is better to remove implication relationships amongst tags. Cycling is one thing, appropriateness of feet is another, no? Cheers, -w signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
At 02:20 PM 7/3/2008, Florian Lohoff wrote: >the wiki page for Tag:highway=cycleway has some inconsistencys. On the >right it says "implies: ... foot=yes" ... In the examples on the lower >part of the page it says "highway=cycleway" + "foot=yes". > >So either the example suggests setting an obsolete tag or the implies >are broken. > >Also the blue sign (German StVO Zeichen 237) implies foot=no so even >another inconsistency concerning the implies at least for germany. There has never been, AFAIK, any definitive discussion on a systematic set of defaults for the highway= tag or any tag for that matter. Hence any inconsistency. Though I think the examples you quote are not inconsistent ... the second one is a caption for a photo [1] with a sign explicitly allowing both foot and cycle, capturing that is good practice I think ... though I am lazy in that regard. I certainly agree that the default for foot access should be one or the other for highway=cycleway. My own preference is for default foot=yes. Outside Europe, I've never personally seen paths or tracks where cycles go but not foot traffic. There is also usually no explicit signage, people just do. In Sweden, paths I've seen are either unsigned or when signed, overwhelming with a blue sign for both cycle and foot. Cycle-only paths are rare, and when I find them, I add foot=no. I wonder if that is true for Germany and the Netherlands too? Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway#See_also Also: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Map_Features#Highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:cycleway ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
Hi, the wiki page for Tag:highway=cycleway has some inconsistencys. On the right it says "implies: ... foot=yes" ... In the examples on the lower part of the page it says "highway=cycleway" + "foot=yes". So either the example suggests setting an obsolete tag or the implies are broken. Also the blue sign (German StVO Zeichen 237) implies foot=no so even another inconsistency concerning the implies at least for germany. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google sat images in JOSM
Just to note what's been said in the past about this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-October/019172.html On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Stephan Schildberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You might watch it... Don't infringe copyrights. > > http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=3&lat=43.45292&lon=-6.5918&layers=B000TFFF > > The slider in the upper right corner allows you to switch the intensity > of the GoogleMaps- or OSM-layer. > > regards, Stephan. >> Is there any way to view Google sat images at OSM? >> The Landsat coverage of my area is in very low resolution. >> > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > > -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google sat images in JOSM
You might watch it... Don't infringe copyrights. http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=3&lat=43.45292&lon=-6.5918&layers=B000TFFF The slider in the upper right corner allows you to switch the intensity of the GoogleMaps- or OSM-layer. regards, Stephan. > Is there any way to view Google sat images at OSM? > The Landsat coverage of my area is in very low resolution. > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pyroute share server
GPX: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/pos/?A=getfmt&G=1&RP=&FMT=gpx anyone wants a different output format, please send a modified copy of: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/sites/other/ranaShareServer/index.php On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:33 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> if anyone wants to do an openlayers web-viewer for the data that would >> be nice (currently the server is just text-based). The interface for >> getting data is: >> >> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/pos/?A=get&G=1&RP= >> >> where G is the group number, and RP is the password (numeric) for >> reading that group's data >> > > Are you set on the format for the output > > Would it be possible to output in a known format (KML, GPX, etc), that way > the URL could be piped direct into OpenLayers to produce a magical map. > > Simon. > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
