Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 10 Jun 2009, at 18:43 , Paul Johnson wrote:

> Richard Mann wrote:
>> This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new
>> Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already,
>> but I would appreciate your comments.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation
>
> I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route
> relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in  
> scope
> with the service= and highway= tags.  As such, this really sounds  
> like a
> step in the wrong direction.  Perhaps expanding the service= tags and
> getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render
> these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the
> underlying way is a member of a route=road relation.
>

this is clearly the right direction to cleanup the confusing mix of  
features on ground and a legal designation not seen on ground
there is no overlap at all.
these are 2 entirely different things and tagging them independent  
makes sense. just read the discussion about US road tagging in the  
wiki and you will see how important it is to have them independent.

> The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other
> renderers.  And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed;
> someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct  
> highway
> badges already.
>
> http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11&lat=43.14469&lon=-79.17383&layers=0B0
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Cartinus wrote:

> But all other cyclestreets I know of in the Netherlands are signposted with 
> signs that have no legal status at all. Using designation=cyclestreet there 
> would not be appropriate. Using highway=residential or unclassified plus 
> cycleway=cyclestreet sounds like a very good idea for them.

If it's merely posted as a bicycle route but it's not a cyclestreet,
that would just be whatever highway= plus bicycle=designated.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Mario Salvini wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
>> 2009/6/10 Shaun McDonald :
>>   
>>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
>>> 
>> there are some main differences though: usually they are normal
>> streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't
>> have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have
>> pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to
>> bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for
>> cycleways.
>>
>> Martin
>>   
> yes, it's all about designation. "normal roads" are designated for 
> motor_vehicles. But these roads are only designated for bicycles.
> That's why it's highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes (instead of an 
> implied motor_vehicle=designated for "normal roads".

A designated route would be one where there's signs specifically
suggesting a way as a preferred route; no such implied designation
exists (access=designated is NOT the default).  It simply means the way
is the designated route for a particular class (such as
emergency=designated for Disaster Response Routes in Canada).

bicycle=designated would simply mean the jurisdiction in question has
installed "bike route" signs, regardless of accomodations made.  Salem
has quite a few designated bicycle routes, only one could be construed
to be a bicycle boulevard, but no special accomodation for cyclists has
been made (ie, on-street parking still exists, 4-way stops along the
designated route have not been changed to 2-way stops favoring the
designated route, etc.)  I can even think of a couple motorways in the
pacific northwest that would qualify for bicycle=designated (US-26
between downtown's Canyon Road and Beaverton's Canyon Road; the Trans
Canada Highway north of Saanich, BC; the Trans Canada Highway west of
North Vancouver, parts of Washington's I5...)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Ted Percival wrote:

> If it's not a through road for vehicles but is for bicycles that could
> be a challenge to tag access restrictions on. Perhaps a node with
> barrier=* if there is one.

The barriers aren't usually barriers as such, but rather turn
restrictions in place with exceptions for cyclists to continue.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation

[Paul Johnson]

Richard Mann wrote:
> This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new
> Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already,
> but I would appreciate your comments.
>  
> Richard
>  
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation

I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route
relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope
with the service= and highway= tags.  As such, this really sounds like a
step in the wrong direction.  Perhaps expanding the service= tags and
getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render
these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the
underlying way is a member of a route=road relation.

The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other
renderers.  And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed;
someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct highway
badges already.

http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11&lat=43.14469&lon=-79.17383&layers=0B0




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Cartinus]

On Wednesday 10 June 2009 15:55:10 Richard Mann wrote:
> I think "designation" is about the legal status of a way, particularly
> where that might not be obvious from, or in conflict with the physical
> characteristics of the way.

> We have a tag for special features for cyclists, so I'd use that
> to be a bit more precise: cycleway=cyclestreet.

This would actually be a very good idea for the Netherlands.

I know one (well two parallel ones) Dutch cyclestreets that is (are) 
signposted with a zone sign that actually makes it a:
highway=cycleway
maxspeed=30
motor_vehicle=yes
It goes from Tilburg to Goirle (and back). This signage actually gives it a 
special legal status.

But all other cyclestreets I know of in the Netherlands are signposted with 
signs that have no legal status at all. Using designation=cyclestreet there 
would not be appropriate. Using highway=residential or unclassified plus 
cycleway=cyclestreet sounds like a very good idea for them.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/6/10 Shaun McDonald :
>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
> 
> there are some main differences though: usually they are normal
> streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't
> have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have
> pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to
> bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for
> cycleways.

Sidewalks are optional, some bicycle boulevards are actually pretty bad
for pedestrians in places where houses don't have driveways, in which
case sidewalks were eliminated to move on-street parking farther from
the center to avoid car-door conflicts with passing bicycle traffic
(these are pretty rare, most bicycle boulevards prohibit parking entirely).

And at least in the US and Canada, the speed limits are the same for
cyclists and cars alike (typically 25mph or metric approximation, though
there's been talks of bumping it up to 30 on bicycle boulevards to
accommodate faster commuters).

Cycleways typically have priority over residential streets, more major
cycleways typically have some kind of signalling system over more major
streets, with the most major cycleways being limited-access,
grade-separated operations similar to motorized expressways.  Only the
most minor, go-nowhere park greenways don't have priority at
intersections (rationale being the motorists can wait being merely
privileged users and requiring next to no effort to get moving again,
cyclists have a right to the streets (unlike licensed motorists) and
would have to expend real effort to get moving again).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Karl Newman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul Johnson  > wrote:
> 
> Karl Newman wrote:
> 
> > *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?*
> >
> > When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list
> > message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing
> list.
> > Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select
> > /No/ to receive copies.
> >
> > If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to
> > receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header
> added
> > to it.
> 
> This does not work:  What about gmane users?
> 
> 
> I don't really know how gmane works from a posting perspective (e.g., do
> you have to be subscribed to the mailing list to be able to post from
> gmane, like you do on nabble?), but on http://gmane.org/post.php I found
> this:
> -
> 
> 
> What address is used?
> 
> The news-to-mail authorization script uses the From header to determine
> who's sent the message. If the Reply-To header exists, that header is
> used instead. If you wish From to take precedence over Reply-To, insert
> a non-empty Gmane-From header as well.
> 
> If you wish to redirect replies to your messages back to the mailing
> list, add a Mail-Copies-To: never header to your messages. That will
> result in a Mail-Followup-To header being generated by Gmane. These
> headers are heeded by quite a few mail readers.
> 
> If you add a Reply-To header to your messages that points to a mailing
> list, the message will be silently dropped.

Right, what gmane is describing assumes that everyone on the mailing
list is using a mailer that was written or has been actively been
maintained in the last 10 years, ie, provides a minimum amount of common
functionality.  The problem with that, as I see it, is that there's a
number of people who can't, or won't, switch away from an underfeatured
mail reader like gmail's web interface or Microsoft Outlook or Outlook
Express, which lack features that would pay attention to such headers.

"Followup to list" or "reply to list" is a feature most mailers have
these days; and by gmane's example you gave, it's reasonable for people
to know about and use said features these days.  Reply and Reply to All
ignore mail-followup-to headers; reply/followup to list would pick up
those headers.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Michael Barabanov wrote:
> Can we use relations same way as for more complex cycle routes for this one?

Yes, though you're not limited to just a specific kind of way for relations.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] my cycling speed from gps traces

[Paul Johnson]

si...@mungewell.org wrote:
>> Imagine if we scale this OSM and filter gps traces collected by cars, we
>> have an empirical data on the average traffic speed.
> 
> Unfortunately the GPS traces will be 'slow biased' as we all slow/stop to
> take pictures of post boxes etc.

Depends; some of us just collect GPS data just in case one particular
trip goes someplace poorly traced.  That being said, slow-biased speed
data is probably better than fast-biased speed data, if only to take
into account traffic.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Richard Mann wrote:
> I think "designation" is about the legal status of a way, particularly
> where that might not be obvious from, or in conflict with the physical
> characteristics of the way.
>  
> On physical characteristics, you can get a fair way with
> highway=residential + maxspeed=(say)30. There wouldn't be too many
> people misled by that.

Except in parts of the world where maxspeed=30 is true for all
highway=residential unless otherwise posted (most of Metro Vancouver, BC).

> Maybe add motorcar=destination to emphasise the
> point for routers. We have a tag for special features for cyclists, so
> I'd use that to be a bit more precise: cycleway=cyclestreet.

cycleway=cycleroad wouldn't be a bad option, this would give more
flexibility if larger ways do become bicycle boulevards, as well as
incorporate more major ways that are, in essence, bicycle boulevards
(such as the Hawthorne Bridge and it's double bicycle lane on the
Madison approach).

http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/madisonbikelane.jpg

(By the way, if you live in this area, take a look at the picture:  Most
of these cyclists are doing the right thing, two need to pick a freaking
lane!)

> Is that precise enough - probably. Only a complete absolutist would want
> to add a designation tag to emphasise that this really is a bona fide
> properly-signposted official got-the-tshirt Fahrradstrasse. In which
> case add designation=official (or designation=cyclestreet, if that's a
> locally-agreed value)

designation seems redundant when we have highway= for that purpose...




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Potential Datasources - National Parks/Forest trails/roads/streams/rivers

[Tyler]

As a follow up question: Is there a preferred method for tagging nodes with
a uuid/NID?

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Tyler  wrote:

> Greetings,
> There are sparse trail maps for the Olympics in Washington state both the
> National Parks Service and National Forest Service have data available. The
> national park has an older but still mostly accurate trail data available
> at:
> http://www.onrc.washington.edu/clearinghouse/metadata/onp/onp_trails.htm I've
> already converted it to osm and am chomping at the bit to get it uploaded, I
> just don't want to step on any toes.
>
> To the potential data sources
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources#US_National_Park_Service
>  I've
> also added the NPS data clearing house link
> http://www.nps.gov/gis/data_info/ people would need to check to see that
> the data is NPS (or US Government) created--and thus public domain--but most
> of it is.
>
> Further, I would like to propose the creation of US-NPS and US-NFS import
> pages on the wiki that can be used to reference individual imports of the
> form US-NPS-OLYM (the feds use a pretty standard abbreviation for the
> different parks) and appended with _trails _roads _streams etc. of the
> general form (_shortname)
>
> Altnernatively creating a US-GOV import page and including data imported
> from all of the different agencies.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tyler
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] my cycling speed from gps traces

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/6/10  :
>
>> Imagine if we scale this OSM and filter gps traces collected by cars, we
>> have an empirical data on the average traffic speed.
>
> Unfortunately the GPS traces will be 'slow biased' as we all slow/stop to
> take pictures of post boxes etc.
>
>>
>> Somebody please code this.
>
> I presume you did your plot in Gnuplot or the like.
>
> Did you find this yet?
> http://code.google.com/p/wherewasi/wiki/WhereWasi_Gui
>
> Python code could be extended to colour code the track depending on
> speed/elevation.
>
JOSM can also display the speed in your own gpx-tracks (change prefs. to do so).

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Potential Datasources - National Parks/Forest trails/roads/streams/rivers

[Tyler]

Greetings,
There are sparse trail maps for the Olympics in Washington state both the
National Parks Service and National Forest Service have data available. The
national park has an older but still mostly accurate trail data available
at: http://www.onrc.washington.edu/clearinghouse/metadata/onp/onp_trails.htm
I've
already converted it to osm and am chomping at the bit to get it uploaded, I
just don't want to step on any toes.

To the potential data sources
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources#US_National_Park_Service
I've
also added the NPS data clearing house link
http://www.nps.gov/gis/data_info/ people would need to check to see that the
data is NPS (or US Government) created--and thus public domain--but most of
it is.

Further, I would like to propose the creation of US-NPS and US-NFS import
pages on the wiki that can be used to reference individual imports of the
form US-NPS-OLYM (the feds use a pretty standard abbreviation for the
different parks) and appended with _trails _roads _streams etc. of the
general form (_shortname)

Altnernatively creating a US-GOV import page and including data imported
from all of the different agencies.

Thanks,

Tyler
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/6/10 Mario Salvini :
>> tag both ways as:
>> highway=cycleway
>> motor_vehicle=yes
>> footway=right
>> parking:right=inline
>> parrking:left=diagonal
>> width=13
>>
>> the rest you don't like is just a rendering issue but not about data, I
>> think.
> 
> the rendering is a way of visualizing the inserted data. I believe
> that there should be a way to distinguish in the data between streets
> and ways, that is highway=pedestrian or cycleroad and highway=footway,
> path, cycleway etc. without such additional tags like width=13 (which
> imply to a human that it is a road ). A way with a width=13 IMHO is no
> more a way but a street.

Not only that, but around downtown Portland (LCN-40, the Willamette
Greenway Trail segment) and brief portions of SE Vera Katz Esplanade,
are highway=cycleway with widths exceeding 10 (there's a few spots, such
as the 000 block of SW Salmon Street between Willamette Greenway and
Naito Parkway around Salmon Street Springs that really should be redone
to be a closed way, highway=cycleway, area=yes to be properly mapped, as
the cycleway is unbelievably wide and uses the fountain as a central
island for an intersection, forcing the approach from the not-cycleway
portion of Salmon Street to be unbelievably wide (especially given that
cyclists entering the cycleway from Salmon Street do so in the center
lane, entering the cycleway area almost dead center to the fountain and
frequently having to make a hard veer to the right to avoid pedestrians
or the fountain itself on a sunny day, if they're pushing a yellow
light.  (On wet days, there's usually no pedestrians and many cyclists
take a shortcut through the fountain since they're getting just as wet
either way)

http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=googlesat&mt1=tah&lon=-122.67306&lat=45.51533&zoom=17

So a cycleway with width= is possible, and if you live in a
cool-climate region dotted by hippie-infested college towns, it's fairly
likely you have at least one absurdly wide cycleway.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 2009/6/10 Mario Salvini :
>> tag both ways as:
>> highway=cycleway
>> motor_vehicle=yes
>> footway=right
>> parking:right=inline
>> parrking:left=diagonal
>> width=13
> 
> I won't have it. This feature is a road, not a 20 metre wide cycleway 
> with parking facilities.
> 
> Yes there are different aims that people have in mind when they think 
> about our data, and to someone who only cares about routing for 
> motorized vehicles, this road might actually come close to a "cycleway 
> with cars allowed", but if I'd tell any of the residents there that they 
> live on a cycleway they'll either laugh or be offended.

Depends on the neighborhood.  Tell someone in Ladd's Addition who lives
on one of the bicycle boulevards (such as Ladd Avenue starting at
Hawthorne) that, and they'd probably be inclined to agree if they've
ever tried to get in or out of their driveway during morning or evening
rush hour.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.51174&lon=-122.65324&zoom=16&layers=0B00FTF

Coincidentally, the bridge just west of that recently had a
bicycle-versus-pedestrian accident severe enough they're talking about
eliminating pedestrian access to the Hawthorne Bridge in a tradeoff for
a second bicycle lane each direction, which suggests the bridge is
carrying close to as many bicycle commuters as cars.  This is actually
pretty believable for the location.

http://www.streetfilms.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/portland-hawthorne-poster.jpg

Notice the cyclists more or less ignoring the pedestrian lane (camera
left, their right) leaving the bicycle (their left) lane free for faster
commuters.  Not hard to imagine why they want to move pedestrians to the
next bridge, which has sidewalks but no bicycle facilities.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Ed Loach wrote:
>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with
>> highway=cycleway.
> 
> As per the discussion on the talk page of the proposal.
> Alternatively highway=(road type), access=no, bicycle=yes. There are
> arguments I believe that in exceptions where cars are also allowed,
> having a different highway type would make clear that bicycles have
> right of way over cars (if I read the discussion correctly). Even
> then, highway=cycleway, width=whatever, motorcar=permissive (or
> whatever the tags are) should suffice. Or is this about how it
> renders?

This is about how it renders /and/ access.  Bicycle boulevards imply
that it's perfectly legal to drive a motorcar on it, but doing so is
generally a bad idea because you're going to be forced to turn, get
caught in a velojam (traffic jam consisting primarily of bicycles), or
both.  The restrictions and intersection devices simply favor the
bicycle boulevard.  Cyclemaps should render this on par to a tertiary or
better that identifies it as such, maps geared towards motorists would
show it as a minor access like an alley (since cyclists would consider a
bicycle boulevard to be a more major route than an adjacent seven-lane
boulevard lacking bicycle facilities, and a motorist would likely prefer
the boulevard to a street where cars are forced off the way by
only_right_turn every few blocks (motorists usually only being granted
the rightmost lane on bicycle boulevards at intersections).  In reality,
it's more major than a residential, but not as major as a tertiary, in
terms of who gets right of way at intersections.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Shaun McDonald wrote:
> 
> On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
>> 2009/6/9 Paul Johnson :
>>> I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given
>>> that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in
>>> OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities.
>>>  Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play
>>> in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a
>>> very real collision hazard at peak traffic times.  This kind of way has
>>> sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were
>>> formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards.
>>
>> I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality,
>> because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad
>>
> 
> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.

Do cycleways normally allow motorized vehicles?  Bicycle boulevards do
(even if they do make using one an exceptional pain).




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OGC Geospatial Rights Management Summit

[SteveC]

On 9 Jun 2009, at 06:27, John Wilbanks wrote:

> Puneet Kishor, who is a Science Commons Fellow looking at geospatial
> data and climate change, will be attending and hoisting the facts  
> can't
> be copyrighted flag.

Er, sounds like a red herring to me since they can have database  
rights and be licensed who cares about the copyright for the purposes  
of some ridiculous DRM schema that the big licensers will use?

Best

Steve


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Mario Salvini wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst schrieb:
>> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>>   
>>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
>>> 
>> plus designation=cycleroad
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>>   
> is there a benefit instead of just tagging these ways:
> highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes ?
> 
> cycleway just told, that's this way is bicycle=designated.
> So why designation=?

Because it can be bicycle=designated without being a bicycle boulevard.
 Consider Vancouver, BC's Highway 99 through downtown.  It's the
designated route for north/south bicycle traffic, and bicycles typically
get their own lane (usually second or third away from the curb, even, to
avoid blindside conflicts with bus and taxi traffic!), but such a way
would NOT be a bicycle boulevard, as motorists aren't generally
discouraged by turn restrictions to leave the way every few blocks.

Portland and Seattle (and likely elsewhere) mappers would be familiar
with this concept as originally conceived in the 1970s, as a popular
design for downtown transit malls (except there aren't any bus turnouts
along the curb, and replace the busses with bicycles).





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Mario Salvini wrote:
>> Even in germany on these roads there are no additional rights-of-way in 
>> comparison to "normal" cycleways (except that bicycles get the 
>> officially allowance to drive next to each other and not just inline. 
>> buts that's piece of cake ;) ). A normal cycleway with 
>> motorcar/agricultural/...=yes/destination/... would be exactly the same.
> 
> We're getting very much into national detail here but just to give an 
> example, look at this aerial image (which is 100 metres from my office BTW):
> 
> http://maps.google.de/maps?ll=49.007912,8.378746&spn=0.000729,0.001026&t=h&z=20
>
> The road going east-west is a former residential road with different 
> lanes for each direction of travel, plus diagonal parking spaces in the
> middle. It is over 20 metres wide. This road has now been designated a 
> "Fahrradstrasse" (cycle road). Motorized traffic is still allowed at 
> "adequate speeds" (whatever that means).

I'm not convinced this is a national detail, as it's one that I brought
up given that they're a common fixture in Portland, Oregon; and Victoria
and Vancouver, BC.  The fact you also have them in Germany strikes me as
 further evidence that cycleroads are not a national detail, but rather
an international development in highway design.

> While I am not a big fan of endless tagging discussions, tagging the 
> road above as "highway=cycleway, car=yes" strikes me as grossly misleading.
> 
> Maybe it should simply retain highway=residential. After all, the 
> "residentialness" of the road has not changed one bit since it was 
> designated a cycle road.

On the other hand, it's no longer as minor as a residential road, nor
has the same use as a residential road (as it's throughbound for cyclists).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] my cycling speed from gps traces

[simon]

> Imagine if we scale this OSM and filter gps traces collected by cars, we
> have an empirical data on the average traffic speed.

Unfortunately the GPS traces will be 'slow biased' as we all slow/stop to
take pictures of post boxes etc.

>
> Somebody please code this.

I presume you did your plot in Gnuplot or the like.

Did you find this yet?
http://code.google.com/p/wherewasi/wiki/WhereWasi_Gui

Python code could be extended to colour code the track depending on
speed/elevation.

Simon



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Bicycle boulevards

[Karl Newman]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Karl Newman wrote:
>
> > *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?*
> >
> > When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list
> > message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list.
> > Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select
> > /No/ to receive copies.
> >
> > If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to
> > receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header added
> > to it.
>
> This does not work:  What about gmane users?
>

I don't really know how gmane works from a posting perspective (e.g., do you
have to be subscribed to the mailing list to be able to post from gmane,
like you do on nabble?), but on http://gmane.org/post.php I found this:
-
What address is used? The news-to-mail authorization script uses the From
header to determine who's sent the message. If the Reply-To header exists,
that header is used instead. If you wish From to take precedence over
Reply-To, insert a non-empty Gmane-From header as well.

If you wish to redirect replies to your messages back to the mailing list,
add a Mail-Copies-To: never header to your messages. That will result in a
Mail-Followup-To header being generated by Gmane. These headers are heeded
by quite a few mail readers.

If you add a Reply-To header to your messages that points to a mailing list,
the message will be silently dropped.

-

Karl
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Karl Newman wrote:

> *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?*
> 
> When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list
> message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list.
> Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select
> /No/ to receive copies.
> 
> If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to
> receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header added
> to it.

This does not work:  What about gmane users?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] script and python bindings

[Tyler]

Hey Nathan,

I was just fighting with this, I'm working on importing trails to the
national parks and forests in Washington state.
I used gdalwin32 [1] as my windows gdal (fwtools' python bindings appear
busted in Windows) I then had to get the python bindings from pypi
[2]. Then I had to fight with the script and ended up using a modified
shape_to_osm-Flowline.py [3] script.
I also needed PROJ.4 from [4]. I'm using python 2.5, python, gdal and PROJ.4
are in my path and GDAL_DATA is a new sys variable.
Good luck!

[1] http://download.osgeo.org/gdal/win32/1.6/gdalwin32exe160.zip
[2] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/GDAL/
[3]
http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/import/nhd2osm/shape_to_osm-Flowline.py
[4] http://www.remotesensing.org/proj

-Tyler

p.s. I guess it's time for me
to break down and make the wiki account to put this stuff up.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Nathan Mixter  wrote:

>  I'm trying to run the polyshp2osm.py script on a shapefile I converted to
> 4326 format using ogr2ogr. I copied the script and all three files created
> by ogr2ogr to the c directory.
>
> I try to run from the command prompt
> python c:\polyshp2osm.py -s 10 -o 4 -l c:/open C:/Zoning.shp.
>
>
>
> But I keep getting "ogr python bindings not installed"
>
>
>
> I tried several different options from
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/DownloadingGdalBinaries
>
>
>
> I added the path location\data in the GDAL_DATA system variable and the
> location\bin to the path.
>
>
>
> I added the gdal locaton inside the script.
>
>
>
> I got the same results when I installed fw tools, when I ran the individual
> installation and when I ran it from USBGIS.
>
>
>
> I tried uninstalling and reinstalling the application several times in
> different orders, but still nothing.
>
>
>
> What am I missing? Anything I can try? Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] my cycling speed from gps traces

[maning sambale]

> analyze timestamps and point intervals, to interpolate traffic and
> average speed at certain times of the day.

Hi,

Just want to share this, my average cycle speed (km/h) when mapping:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3610/3613512951_c2bd08838b_o.png

Imagine if we scale this OSM and filter gps traces collected by cars, we
have an empirical data on the average traffic speed.

Somebody please code this.


--
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Mario Salvini]

(highway=cycleway +)
cycleway=cyclestreet could also be a good solution (next to lane and 
[additional] track)

--
 Mario

Richard Mann schrieb:
> I think "designation" is about the legal status of a way, particularly 
> where that might not be obvious from, or in conflict with the physical 
> characteristics of the way.
>  
> On physical characteristics, you can get a fair way with 
> highway=residential + maxspeed=(say)30. There wouldn't be too many 
> people misled by that. Maybe add motorcar=destination to emphasise the 
> point for routers. We have a tag for special features for cyclists, so 
> I'd use that to be a bit more precise: cycleway=cyclestreet.
>  
> Is that precise enough - probably. Only a complete absolutist would 
> want to add a designation tag to emphasise that this really is a bona 
> fide properly-signposted official got-the-tshirt Fahrradstrasse. In 
> which case add designation=official (or designation=cyclestreet, if 
> that's a locally-agreed value)
>  
> Richard
>  
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Frederik Ramm  > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2009/6/10 Mario Salvini  >:
> > tag both ways as:
> > highway=cycleway
> > motor_vehicle=yes
> > footway=right
> > parking:right=inline
> > parrking:left=diagonal
> > width=13
>
> I won't have it. This feature is a road, not a 20 metre wide cycleway
> with parking facilities.
>
> Yes there are different aims that people have in mind when they think
> about our data, and to someone who only cares about routing for
> motorized vehicles, this road might actually come close to a "cycleway
> with cars allowed", but if I'd tell any of the residents there
> that they
> live on a cycleway they'll either laugh or be offended.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> 
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>   


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Norbert Hoffmann]

Mario Salvini wrote:

>yes, it's all about designation. "normal roads" are designated for 
>motor_vehicles. But these roads are only designated for bicycles.

I would say: "Normal roads" are designated for all kinds of traffic and so
are cycleroads (but with special restrictions for motor_vehicles and some
special rules for bicycles).

>That's why it's highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes (instead of an 
>implied motor_vehicle=designated for "normal roads".

That's why I would call it highway=residential + designation=cycleroad.

Norbert

PS: I know only the cycleroads here in Kiel.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/6/10 Richard Mann :
> I think "designation" is about the legal status of a way, particularly where
> that might not be obvious from, or in conflict with the physical
> characteristics of the way.
>
> On physical characteristics, you can get a fair way with highway=residential
> + maxspeed=(say)30. There wouldn't be too many people misled by that. Maybe
> add motorcar=destination to emphasise the point for routers. We have a tag
> for special features for cyclists, so I'd use that to be a bit more precise:
> cycleway=cyclestreet.
>
> Is that precise enough - probably.

I think that it is precise enough (besides details) but it is not the
way I would like to see it in the data, because of it's tipology. It
is exactly as Frederik pointed out: it is a road, not a cycleway.

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/6/10 Frederik Ramm :
> I won't have it. This feature is a road, not a 20 metre wide cycleway
> with parking facilities.

+1
We should IMHO care more about tipology when talking about classification.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Richard Mann]

I think "designation" is about the legal status of a way, particularly where
that might not be obvious from, or in conflict with the physical
characteristics of the way.

On physical characteristics, you can get a fair way with highway=residential
+ maxspeed=(say)30. There wouldn't be too many people misled by that. Maybe
add motorcar=destination to emphasise the point for routers. We have a tag
for special features for cyclists, so I'd use that to be a bit more precise:
cycleway=cyclestreet.

Is that precise enough - probably. Only a complete absolutist would want to
add a designation tag to emphasise that this really is a bona fide
properly-signposted official got-the-tshirt Fahrradstrasse. In which case
add designation=official (or designation=cyclestreet, if that's a
locally-agreed value)

Richard

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2009/6/10 Mario Salvini :
> > tag both ways as:
> > highway=cycleway
> > motor_vehicle=yes
> > footway=right
> > parking:right=inline
> > parrking:left=diagonal
> > width=13
>
> I won't have it. This feature is a road, not a 20 metre wide cycleway
> with parking facilities.
>
> Yes there are different aims that people have in mind when they think
> about our data, and to someone who only cares about routing for
> motorized vehicles, this road might actually come close to a "cycleway
> with cars allowed", but if I'd tell any of the residents there that they
> live on a cycleway they'll either laugh or be offended.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Martin Simon]

2009/6/10 Mario Salvini :

>>
>> there are some main differences though: usually they are normal
>> streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't
>> have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have
>> pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to
>> bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for
>> cycleways.
>>
>> Martin
>>
> yes, it's all about designation. "normal roads" are designated for
> motor_vehicles. But these roads are only designated for bicycles.
> That's why it's highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes (instead of an
> implied motor_vehicle=designated for "normal roads".

"Normal roads" do not have any special designation _by default_ -
where did you read that?
These cycleroads *are* "normal roads", just with a special traffic rule applied.
They do not have much in common with ordinary cycleways.

-Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Mario Salvini]

Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
> 2009/6/10 Shaun McDonald :
>   
>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
>> 
>
> there are some main differences though: usually they are normal
> streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't
> have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have
> pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to
> bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for
> cycleways.
>
> Martin
>   
yes, it's all about designation. "normal roads" are designated for 
motor_vehicles. But these roads are only designated for bicycles.
That's why it's highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes (instead of an 
implied motor_vehicle=designated for "normal roads".

Regards
 Mario

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

2009/6/10 Mario Salvini :
> tag both ways as:
> highway=cycleway
> motor_vehicle=yes
> footway=right
> parking:right=inline
> parrking:left=diagonal
> width=13

I won't have it. This feature is a road, not a 20 metre wide cycleway 
with parking facilities.

Yes there are different aims that people have in mind when they think 
about our data, and to someone who only cares about routing for 
motorized vehicles, this road might actually come close to a "cycleway 
with cars allowed", but if I'd tell any of the residents there that they 
live on a cycleway they'll either laugh or be offended.

Bye
Frederik

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mario Salvini wrote:
> is there a benefit instead of just tagging these ways:
> highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes ?

Yes.

> cycleway just told, that's this way is bicycle=designated.
> So why designation=?

designation= means "this is the official designation of this way". It has
nothing to do with bicycle=designated.

In the UK, for example, a way might be tagged with
"designation=restricted_byway" or "designation=bridleway". These denote the
official right-of-way status of the way, with all sorts of legal
implications (for example, cycling allowed, cycle racing _not_ allowed)
which would be impractical to express through a long list of individual
tags.

"designation=cycleroad" would mean the same sort of thing: the German
government's rules on cycleroads apply to this way.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Bicycle-boulevards-tp23949507p23961860.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/6/10 Mario Salvini :
> tag both ways as:
> highway=cycleway
> motor_vehicle=yes
> footway=right
> parking:right=inline
> parrking:left=diagonal
> width=13
>
> the rest you don't like is just a rendering issue but not about data, I
> think.

the rendering is a way of visualizing the inserted data. I believe
that there should be a way to distinguish in the data between streets
and ways, that is highway=pedestrian or cycleroad and highway=footway,
path, cycleway etc. without such additional tags like width=13 (which
imply to a human that it is a road ). A way with a width=13 IMHO is no
more a way but a street.

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/6/10 Shaun McDonald :
> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.

there are some main differences though: usually they are normal
streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't
have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have
pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to
bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for
cycleways.

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation

[Richard Mann]

This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new Key:designation.
Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already, but I would appreciate
your comments.

Richard

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Mario Salvini]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Mario Salvini wrote:
>> Even in germany on these roads there are no additional rights-of-way 
>> in comparison to "normal" cycleways (except that bicycles get the 
>> officially allowance to drive next to each other and not just inline. 
>> buts that's piece of cake ;) ). A normal cycleway with 
>> motorcar/agricultural/...=yes/destination/... would be exactly the same.
>
> We're getting very much into national detail here but just to give an 
> example, look at this aerial image (which is 100 metres from my office 
> BTW):
>
> http://maps.google.de/maps?ll=49.007912,8.378746&spn=0.000729,0.001026&t=h&z=20
>  
>
>
> The road going east-west is a former residential road with different 
> lanes for each direction of travel, plus diagonal parking spaces in the
> middle. It is over 20 metres wide. This road has now been designated a 
> "Fahrradstrasse" (cycle road). Motorized traffic is still allowed at 
> "adequate speeds" (whatever that means).
>
> While I am not a big fan of endless tagging discussions, tagging the 
> road above as "highway=cycleway, car=yes" strikes me as grossly 
> misleading.
>
> Maybe it should simply retain highway=residential. After all, the 
> "residentialness" of the road has not changed one bit since it was 
> designated a cycle road.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
tag both ways as:
highway=cycleway
motor_vehicle=yes
footway=right
parking:right=inline
parrking:left=diagonal
width=13

the rest you don't like is just a rendering issue but not about data, I 
think.

Best regards
 Mario


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature for API 0.7 ??

[Stefan de Konink]

hanoj wrote:
> I have idea about relative positioned node on the line (crossing,
> bus_stop, railway stops) object with no direct relation to geometry,
> but with topology relation.

Currently I describe it even in a step further.

Imagine that you could contraint lines based on these properties; for 
example you have two lines, and one line [the black one] moves:

http://konink.de/contrib/afstuderen/example.png


Having 'virtual' nodes will directly give you the right change, that can 
propagate in the entire graph.

Now the bus stop model could perfectly be fitted at the aspect ratio or 
offset of a line for topology reasons.


Stefan

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Mario Salvini wrote:
> Even in germany on these roads there are no additional rights-of-way in 
> comparison to "normal" cycleways (except that bicycles get the 
> officially allowance to drive next to each other and not just inline. 
> buts that's piece of cake ;) ). A normal cycleway with 
> motorcar/agricultural/...=yes/destination/... would be exactly the same.

We're getting very much into national detail here but just to give an 
example, look at this aerial image (which is 100 metres from my office BTW):

http://maps.google.de/maps?ll=49.007912,8.378746&spn=0.000729,0.001026&t=h&z=20

The road going east-west is a former residential road with different 
lanes for each direction of travel, plus diagonal parking spaces in the
middle. It is over 20 metres wide. This road has now been designated a 
"Fahrradstrasse" (cycle road). Motorized traffic is still allowed at 
"adequate speeds" (whatever that means).

While I am not a big fan of endless tagging discussions, tagging the 
road above as "highway=cycleway, car=yes" strikes me as grossly misleading.

Maybe it should simply retain highway=residential. After all, the 
"residentialness" of the road has not changed one bit since it was 
designated a cycle road.

Bye
Frederik


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Mario Salvini]

Richard Fairhurst schrieb:
> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>   
>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
>> 
>
> plus designation=cycleroad
>
> cheers
> Richard
>   
is there a benefit instead of just tagging these ways:
highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes ?

cycleway just told, that's this way is bicycle=designated.
So why designation=?


Regards
 Mario

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Mario Salvini]

Shaun McDonald schrieb:
>
> On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> 2009/6/9 Paul Johnson :
>>> I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, 
>>> given
>>> that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in
>>> OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities.
>>>  Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play
>>> in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a
>>> very real collision hazard at peak traffic times.  This kind of way has
>>> sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were
>>> formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards.
>>
>> I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality,
>> because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad
>>
>
> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
>
> Shaun
+1 for me.
Even in germany on these roads there are no additional rights-of-way in 
comparison to "normal" cycleways (except that bicycles get the 
officially allowance to drive next to each other and not just inline. 
buts that's piece of cake ;) ). A normal cycleway with 
motorcar/agricultural/...=yes/destination/... would be exactly the same.

Regards
Mario

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Christoph Boehme]

Shaun McDonald wrote:
> 
> On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
>> 2009/6/9 Paul Johnson :
>>> I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given
>>> that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in
>>> OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities.
>>>  Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play
>>> in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a
>>> very real collision hazard at peak traffic times.  This kind of way has
>>> sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were
>>> formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards.
>>
>> I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality,
>> because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad
>>
> 
> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.

In Germany bicycle boulevards and normal cycle ways are different types 
of roads with different rules applying to them. Bicycle boulevards also 
tend to look more like proper roads than cycle ways. For example 
residental roads are often re-designated as bicycle boulevards. I would 
find it odd if these would then appear only as dashed blue lines on the map.

Cheers,
Christoph

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Richard Fairhurst]

Shaun McDonald wrote:
> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.

plus designation=cycleroad

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Bicycle-boulevards-tp23949507p23959526.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Marc Schütz]

> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.

These streets are completely analogous to highway=pedestrian, just for 
bicycles. If pedestrian streets deserve their own highway type, these do too.

Regards, Marc

-- 
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Ed Loach]

> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with
> highway=cycleway.

As per the discussion on the talk page of the proposal.
Alternatively highway=(road type), access=no, bicycle=yes. There are
arguments I believe that in exceptions where cars are also allowed,
having a different highway type would make clear that bicycles have
right of way over cars (if I read the discussion correctly). Even
then, highway=cycleway, width=whatever, motorcar=permissive (or
whatever the tags are) should suffice. Or is this about how it
renders?

Ed



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Shaun McDonald]

On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2009/6/9 Paul Johnson :
I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets,  
given
that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle  
boulevard in
OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian  
facilities.
 Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids  
play
in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would  
present a
very real collision hazard at peak traffic times.  This kind of way  
has
sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them  
were

formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards.


I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality,
because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad



In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.

Shaun



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature for API 0.7 ??

[Donald Allwright]

Hi Hanoj,
 I don't really understand your diagram I'm afraid - could you clarify your 
meaning please? Are there some specific things you're trying to achieve here? 
Could you explain what you mean by "relative node"? 

Regards,
Donald

 When the winds of change start blowing, some people look for shelter. Others 
build windmills. 
-- Ancient Chinese Proverb.
http://donaldallwright.blogspot.com





From: hanoj 
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009 9:04:44
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature for API 0.7 ??

Hi!
I have idea about relative positioned node on the line (crossing,
bus_stop, railway stops) object with no direct relation to geometry,
but with topology relation.

Legend:
x node
o relative node
 way


IDEA object model:
x--o--o-ox


API <0.7
x-- x-  x
x--x


bye
hanoj

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] script and python bindings

[Nathan Mixter]

I'm trying to run the polyshp2osm.py script on a shapefile I converted to
4326 format using ogr2ogr. I copied the script and all three files created
by ogr2ogr to the c directory.

I try to run from the command prompt
python c:\polyshp2osm.py -s 10 -o 4 -l c:/open C:/Zoning.shp.

 

But I keep getting "ogr python bindings not installed"

 

I tried several different options from
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/DownloadingGdalBinaries

 

I added the path location\data in the GDAL_DATA system variable and the
location\bin to the path.

 

I added the gdal locaton inside the script.

 

I got the same results when I installed fw tools, when I ran the individual
installation and when I ran it from USBGIS.

 

I tried uninstalling and reinstalling the application several times in
different orders, but still nothing.

 

What am I missing? Anything I can try? Thanks

 






___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature for API 0.7 ??

[hanoj]

Hi!
I have idea about relative positioned node on the line (crossing,
bus_stop, railway stops) object with no direct relation to geometry,
but with topology relation.

Legend:
x node
o relative node
 way


IDEA object model:
x--o--o-ox


API <0.7
x-- x-  x
x--x


bye
hanoj

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] POI/node summary stats

[maning sambale]

There is a perl script for summarizing length of highways
(osm-length-2.pl), is there one for summarizing type and number of
POI/node tags for an input osm file?
Not tagwatch, I just want to create a summary report of used tags
around my mapping area.


-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Is Xapi working?

[80n]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Roland Olbricht wrote:

>
> > is there any other way to get OSM data without going to the main server?
> > there are no other caches, right?
>
> There is a whole ecosystem of servers providing OSM data
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Planet.osm
>
> There are a couple of sources for excerpts or diff files listed on this
> page.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ROMA
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TRAPI
>
> These two services are optimised for queries to make a map of the data.
> They
> are intended to be only some minutes behind the main server but don't offer
> all the tags. So you should not use the data for further editing.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/XAPI
>
> This is the well known alternative to the main API. It's also intended to
> be
> only minutes behind the main server. It has an extended API with still a
> concise syntax. The data is usable for editing. The only tag that is
> filtered
> out is "created_by" - this tag can safely be ignored.
>

Correction.  XAPI does provide the created_by tag.  It also provides the
version attribute.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk