[OSM-talk] a painted board with map of the locality (you-are-here)
Hi, Is there a POI for boards that are usually at the entrance of residential localities showing the streets/names and plot numbers - like you-are-here ones? (a POI on a map showing where the map is :p) Could not locate it in the wiki. Thanks, Vikas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that! > > I like highway=path. With surface=grass, of course! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag > an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would > help routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, that > doesn't make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be > recommended to sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair. Bad analogy. If I look in a dictionary under "chair", there is no definition which says "a thing that is sat upon". But if I look under "path", there is a definition which says "a route, course, or track along which something moves". >>> A path, IMHO, is something >>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e. >>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path). >> >> Usually, or always? > > Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it still be a > path? No, my question was whether you really meant to use the word "usually". > Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability. The fact that an area of land is within a legally defined right of way is verifiable. The fact that it is suitable for travel is verifiable. The fact that people use it for travel is verifiable. I suppose in that sense I can *see* that it resembles a path. > Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that! I like highway=path. More general. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> An area of grass is - to me - not a path. > > Never? Or just not generally? I'll rephrase. The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would help routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, that doesn't make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be recommended to sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair. The only reason I would tag an area of grass as a path is if, when I asked a typical stranger, "hey, is that over there a path?", they replied yes. If I ask "is this a chair?"...you get the picture. In that sense, of course, the photos you linked to are paths. Common sense. >> A path, IMHO, is something >> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e. >> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path). > > Usually, or always? Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it still be a path? Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability. > If there were some other tag for me to use (say highway=grass), fine. > But none of the other highway tags are appropriate, and the routing > information needs to be designated somehow. The area of grass I have > in mind exists in a legal right of way. It's not like I'm talking > about cutting through someone's backyard. It's a perfectly legitimate > path of travel. It should provided in walking directions. And that > means having some sort of highway tag. I don't have an easy answer for your problem. I would urge caution, though, in tagging things that aren't verifiable. Actually, I remember trekking recently, using an OSM map, that connected one track to another. The tracks actually *weren't connected* in any way other than through a short stint through dense forest. This is the problem: when you tag in order to have things "provided in walking directions", this can lead you astray. Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >> When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an >> area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a >> "path" which is part of "reality"? > > An area of grass is - to me - not a path. Never? Or just not generally? What if the grass is slightly bare? http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg Cut short? http://www.agrigarden.co.nz/Data/Media/Images/Path%20through%20grass%20resize.jpg http://img2.allposters.com/images/PTGPOD/GPBO05-3171-001-FB.jpg Through an otherwise impassible area? http://www.chimacumwoods.com/images/Path%20to%20south.JPG Marked by a sign? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/5/52/PathSnowmobile.jpg > A path, IMHO, is something > that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e. > usually you can *see* that it resembles a path). Usually, or always? Usually, fine, I agree. Always, that just doesn't coincide with my definition of "path". To me, the fact that you can usually recognize a path is an effect, not a cause. If there were some other tag for me to use (say highway=grass), fine. But none of the other highway tags are appropriate, and the routing information needs to be designated somehow. The area of grass I have in mind exists in a legal right of way. It's not like I'm talking about cutting through someone's backyard. It's a perfectly legitimate path of travel. It should provided in walking directions. And that means having some sort of highway tag. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote: > 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions > is here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers are doing something with the path tag. On Sunday 29 November 2009 02:15:14 Roy Wallace wrote: > That's fair enough. My main point was that you can at least be assured > that other mappers are using the same documentation (the wiki as a > whole) to decide how to tag their ways. If you ask on this email list, > you cannot be assured of that. Actually you can't, because there is a whole horde of experienced mappers that gave up on the wiki-mess. But they do speak up from time to time on the mailinglists. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Nop wrote: > >> So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal >> opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions >> from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers >> ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's >> written down has flaws, they must be fixed. > > No help there. The major contractiory interpretations of the tags around > this topic are all "documented" in the wiki in contradictory ways. It just > depends on which page you find first and what conlusions you derive from > rather fuzzy definitions. I know. I didn't mean to say the *content* of the wiki is necessarily good, just that I think the *concept* of the wiki is a better way to aim for consistency than throwing around personal opinions from time to time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wrote: > > When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an > area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a > "path" which is part of "reality"? An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e. usually you can *see* that it resembles a path). >> 3) Re: what does really mean? - rather than everyone giving >> their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users >> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that. > > "A generic path, either multi-use, or unspecified usage." > > Umm, okay. I take that to mean anything course of travel that isn't > covered by one of the other highway tags. That's fair enough. My main point was that you can at least be assured that other mappers are using the same documentation (the wiki as a whole) to decide how to tag their ways. If you ask on this email list, you cannot be assured of that. As an aside, about highway=path...the definition of "generic" is "descriptive of all members of a genus", so I take it to mean that - quite intuitively - all paths are a kind of path, regardless of whether you can ride a bicycle or walk or snowmobile on them :) But I'm not going to get into this discussion again - instead let's go and improve http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Hi! Roy Wallace schrieb: > The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes > confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your > own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on > to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good outcome. The newbie - who usually assumes that there is a simple and straightforward answer to the simple question "how to I tag a footway" - becomes confused - and frustrated that such a basic thing is unsolved and not looking like it's going to be solved one of these years. To the newcomer, this is somewhere between unexpected and crazy. > So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal > opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions > from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers > ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's > written down has flaws, they must be fixed. No help there. The major contractiory interpretations of the tags around this topic are all "documented" in the wiki in contradictory ways. It just depends on which page you find first and what conlusions you derive from rather fuzzy definitions. > Note also that by the wiki serving as a "reference" I do not mean that > the wiki page for, say, footway must give only the one "true" > definition. It should 1) document the usage of tags as they occur in > the database, 2) detail any ongoing controversy and 3) if a consensus > exists, give a clear recommendation on how the tag should be used by > new mappers. 1) The same tags are used with up to 5 different meanings - usually one wiki page only states one interpretation, but there are many different pages. 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path 3) There has never been anything approaching a consensus. Not even close. The discussion has been going around in circles since I first thought there had to be a simple answer to a simple question. Which is about a year. :-) bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > I have a couple of thoughts: > > 1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path > where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of > trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always > work best in the long term. (just my personal preference) When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a "path" which is part of "reality"? > 3) Re: what does really mean? - rather than everyone giving > their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users > I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that. "A generic path, either multi-use, or unspecified usage." Umm, okay. I take that to mean anything course of travel that isn't covered by one of the other highway tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Liz wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: >> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that. > but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the > failure of the committee process > the minority report cannot be distinguished from the majority report > > so a newbie reading the wiki is just going to become confused when it is a > non-vehicular way I think you missed my point - let me clarify. If a newbie asks "hey guys, what's a footway?" and they get 50 responses saying "well, I think it's..." and "well I've been using..." and "no, no, it's really...", that will get us nowhere. Plus, what about the newbies who *don't ask?!* The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good outcome. Please let me stress that I am not saying the wiki is in a good state! But it is the best thing to refer to as a reference for tag meanings, because it is *documented*. That is, for the 10,000's of mapper who are out there adding footways right now and are *not on this list*, one must assume they are doing so on the basis of the definition in the wiki. That is certainly what I did and will continue to do. So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's written down has flaws, they must be fixed. Note also that by the wiki serving as a "reference" I do not mean that the wiki page for, say, footway must give only the one "true" definition. It should 1) document the usage of tags as they occur in the database, 2) detail any ongoing controversy and 3) if a consensus exists, give a clear recommendation on how the tag should be used by new mappers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: > I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that. but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the failure of the committee process the minority report cannot be distinguished from the majority report so a newbie reading the wiki is just going to become confused when it is a non-vehicular way ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o) > stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping > everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we > go for it now ? Ævar's example is interesting. Looks like somebody is doing some area- / micro- mapping in OSM as well. Open this in an editor to see all of the detail work. http://bestofosm.org/?type=mapnik&lon=11.42994&lat=51.30053&zoom=18 Some will look at this and say, "Too much! Impractical! We must map City $n first." Others will say, "Where is the detail? I don't see catch-basins. Where are the expansion joints in the sidewalk? No height tag for the curb; what shoddy work! That mapper hasn't drawn areas for the painted lines on the road!" Each of us will have a different perspective on how much detail is enough or too much. Why not show us your examples as Ævar and Mirko Küster have. I think that there are a number of interesting challenges ahead for area- / micro- mapping. And probably some breathtaking renderings. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
I have a couple of thoughts: 1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always work best in the long term. (just my personal preference) 2) Re: when to use path/footway/cycleway etc. - firstly, I prefer highway=path because it is more extensible. Any highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway can be expressed in terms of a highway=path with additional access tags. In this way, using highway=path can be more explicit, because of ongoing disagreements in the definition of footway/cycleway/bridleway. 3) Re: what does really mean? - rather than everyone giving their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that. I'm sure there are plenty of mappers who read the wiki and nothing else, and if consistency is the goal, I think the wiki should serve to document the current consensus as well as current disagreements. Of course, the wiki needs improving, and I personally think we should make this a priority. See, for example, some of the latest efforts to improve the situation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Richard Bullock wrote: > > There's nothing stopping anyone mapping highways as areas. > > However, it could be a long time until routers and renderers catch up; the > majority of the world wouldn't be able to position the areas accurately > enough to make this worthwhile; GPS errors approaching the size of some > roads; no suitable aerial imagery; lack of time to get the theodolite out > everywhere... I don't share your pessimism :P I just want to determine the best way to do it, in case it turns out other mappers also want to contribute in this way. > In summary, I have no problem with people mapping everything as areas; > however, I believe for the moment we will have to use both areas and ways. > Most wide rivers mapped as areas I've seen also have a way down the > centreline - to define the river name, and direction of flow. That's interesting. I wonder if there are other examples of single entities mapped as an area *as well as* a way? It seems this problem may have been solved before? > More importantly, using both ways and areas would render the way we'd expect; > wider when zoomed out because the way is rendering wider than the area; > wider when zoomed in because we are seeing the visible extent of the area, > and we can have street names rendered in the right direction down the > centreline. For routers we can continue to follow the ways as "navigation > paths", ignoring areas, and we can define the direction of travel for > one-way streets. Yeah, these are good thoughts. But there's something that tells me using an area AND a way for a single entity is a bit redundant... but maybe you're right - maybe it's really quite good as (at least) an interim solution. I still think that, if using this solution, there are still some uncertainties in terms of how to tag the areas/ways, and whether it's necessary to indicate the relationship of the area & way with a relation. I would imagine a relation would be useful to e.g. avoid tag duplication on the area and way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Saturday 28 November 2009 14:37:12 Steve Bennett wrote: > Next question: how popular is this viewpoint? Is this a minority way > of thinking? It was the only viewpoint before highway=path was "invented". Now it is one of several competing viewpoints without a clear winner. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Ok, since I'm new here, You're new here? Welcome to OSM. > I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter > whether this stuff is done the same across different countries? Is it > not ok if "cycleway" has slightly different semantics in different > jurisdictions? A map is an abstraction and can not hope to perfectly represent all of the wonderful variations of 'things' we see. There are likely to be several ways to do some of the things that you want to do. Some of these variations will have subtle benefits and some will be matters of personal preference. Others will be noticeably different than what you will see in other jurisdictions. Look to see what other are doing locally and in similar places. Learn and adapt what you see as best practice in other places. Have fun. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Underwater bicycling, the next Olympic sport... ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... >From :stevag...@gmail.com Date :Sat Nov 28 08:24:57 America/Chicago 2009 (Australian bias showing, I'm unable to conceive of the idea of cycling from one country to another...) -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest drawbacks of OSM. Here's my approach: - A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which was mostly built by an authority. You can walk on it safely in high heels. - A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was not built by somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways in a forest which are to narrow to be tagged as tracks or hiking trails in the mountains. If it's raining you could get dirty shoes. You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes with bicycle=yes/no. You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do not use cycleway. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Maybe I missed the crucial bit, but presumably any area=yes highway > has an implicit line running down the middle of it. The renderer would > use that line at lower zoom levels exactly as it uses any other line. That kind of destroys the whole point of highway areas, which is that you are free to travel in any direction you want. If I were going to write a renderer for it, I'd take the N nodes which connect in and then make (N)(N-1) lines connecting them via the shortest path (lines as straight as possible such that they fit within the area, I'm sure there's a simple algorithm for it). That'd be run as a pre-processing step, at which point I'd throw away the areas. > This does all assume that the area really does behave like a line. If > people get creative with T shapes or whatever, then it would break > down. The whole point of using an area is that it doesn't behave like a line, though. If all you have is a line with a width, use a line with a width tag. > I was thinking about this before, surely you can directionalise an > area by defining a start *way* and an end *way* just as a line has a > start node and end node. Again, assumes an area that is still kind of > linear in shape. In many cases this wouldn't even be necessary, because the connecting ways will be one-way. Even with a T-shape, if the ins and outs are one-way, so is the area by implication. In more complicated situations, turn restrictions could work. However, yes, once it's anything but a line with a width, you're not representing a typical street. And even if you do have a line with a width, if there's more than one lane you're not really capturing the true rules of the road, which include a requirement to generally stay in one lane. A two-lane area stretching for a kilometer would imply to routers that it's perfectly acceptable to drive in a diagonal line from one lane to another - generally not something that's allowed. If you want to go in the direction of mapping the purely physical, then for a multi-lane roadway you'd want to map the area and the lane separators. Then the routers would have a lot of pre-processing work ahead of them, where they'd probably take all those areas and convert them (back) into lines and nodes. On the other hand, renderers would have a piece of cake. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Ben Laenen wrote: > And at one time it was that easy in OSM, but the real world really isn't. In > some countries it may work fine, but in other countries the distinction > between the three has no connection with the actual situation and would > introduce a number of ambiguities where you don't really know anymore whether > something is allowed or not. Ok, since I'm new here, I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter whether this stuff is done the same across different countries? Is it not ok if "cycleway" has slightly different semantics in different jurisdictions? (Australian bias showing, I'm unable to conceive of the idea of cycling from one country to another...) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to mark a footpath that goes under a bridge
On 28/11/2009 14:01, John F. Eldredge wrote: > So, ground level is level 0? I had wondered about that, as the > scanty documentation that I have seen didn't make that point clear. well, it is the *default* level and the levels are relative. As with all things OSM, as there is no rigid spec, whether it is *ground* level is disputable. Some might say that in this case if the railway is on an embankment and the path does not change level, the railway should be +1 and the path 0 even though marked as a tunnel. I really don't think it matters if the levels are correct relatively speaking, and generally you'll find bridges mostly at level 1 and tunnels mostly at level -1. Actually, I personally think it should not be necessary to tag levels at all except in ambiguous cases. Bridges always go over and tunnels under, by definition. Only where there's a bridge over a bridge and you need to resolve the ambiguity should it really be necessary to say. And even without a bridge explicitly marked, rivers always run below roads by definition in all but a handful of special cases where an aqueduct would need to be explicitly marked. However, the widely accepted convention is that we do use levels, so forget my own opinion there. Though tagging for the renderers is frowned on, one thing that helps the renderers because it is algorithmically hard to do neatly otherwise, is to have all ways meeting at a node at the same level - so break a slip road off a motorway half way up the ramp if the grade separated junction it leads to is at level 1, and don't run a bridge straight into a non-bridge junction. Shouldn't be necessary, but it gives much cleaner results. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst > > wrote: > > highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use > > highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use > > highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1] > > Boy, I like this way of thinking. Of course, it must be controversial > given the preceding comments, but it does make a lot of sense. And at one time it was that easy in OSM, but the real world really isn't. In some countries it may work fine, but in other countries the distinction between the three has no connection with the actual situation and would introduce a number of ambiguities where you don't really know anymore whether something is allowed or not. Take cycleways for example. Over here mopeds are allowed on paths that are signed as cycleway. Now, on the other hand we also had paths which weren't cycleways but allowed bicycles (but no mopeds) tagged as cycleway. Conflict between the two: would a route planner now allow mopeds on them or not? Sure, one could explicitly tag the moped=yes/no but (a) mappers forget about it, and (b) even if they don't, they often do not know the exact rules. And not forgetting that (c) traffic code isn't some static thing, it changes over time and what has been allowed on a certain path with certain signs, may not be in future. Hence the addition of highway=path was actually a welcome additional tag. Now we can tag the paths that are legal cycleways as highway=cycleway (and likewise for footpaths and bridleways), and other paths with the generic highway=path. The traffic signs on those paths can then be translated to access tags. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to mark a footpath that goes under a bridge
So, ground level is level 0? I had wondered about that, as the scanty documentation that I have seen didn't make that point clear. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: David Earl Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:56:23 To: ; Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] How to mark a footpath that goes under a bridge On 28/11/2009 13:52, John F. Eldredge wrote: > I am in the process of learning how to use JOSM to transform a GPS > trace into a way, and have a question about how to mark a footpath > that passes under a highway bridge. As I understand the conventions, > placing a node at this crossing point would imply that they connect > to each other, which is not the case. Should the ways simply cross, > relying on the layer tag to mark which one is above the other? The > existing highway data, probably derived from a TIGER import, does not > indicate bridges as opposed to regular roadways. The should cross, not connect, but the higher way one should be split along the length of the bridge and marked layer=1, bridge=yes (unless the footway is more a tunnel under the line, in which case instead split the footway and mark the sub-railway section as layer=-1, tunnel=yes) (This isn't JOSM specific BTW) David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] How to mark a footpath that goes under a bridge
I am in the process of learning how to use JOSM to transform a GPS trace into a way, and have a question about how to mark a footpath that passes under a highway bridge. As I understand the conventions, placing a node at this crossing point would imply that they connect to each other, which is not the case. Should the ways simply cross, relying on the layer tag to mark which one is above the other? The existing highway data, probably derived from a TIGER import, does not indicate bridges as opposed to regular roadways. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Richard Bullock wrote: > In summary, I have no problem with people mapping everything as areas; > however, I believe for the moment we will have to use both areas and ways. If you're going to use an area and a way, don't tag them both with highway=*. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Richard Bullock wrote: > For renderers: > > * nearly all maps exaggerate road width except when really zoomed in. A > 30-35 metre wide motorway would appear almost insignificant at z levels less > than 10 or 12 - but this is precisely the opposite of what we'd want; > motorways should be significant roads when zoomed out. You'd have to find a > way of expanding the areas to make these more significant. Maybe I missed the crucial bit, but presumably any area=yes highway has an implicit line running down the middle of it. The renderer would use that line at lower zoom levels exactly as it uses any other line. This does all assume that the area really does behave like a line. If people get creative with T shapes or whatever, then it would break down. > For routers: > > * routing over areas is much harder than routing along ways between > nodes. Directions are not defined so one-ways are meaningless. You could do > routing over areas, with some pre-processing, but it would 'break' a number > of existing established routers I was thinking about this before, surely you can directionalise an area by defining a start *way* and an end *way* just as a line has a start node and end node. Again, assumes an area that is still kind of linear in shape. > In summary, I have no problem with people mapping everything as areas; > however, I believe for the moment we will have to use both areas and ways. > Most wide rivers mapped as areas I've seen also have a way down the > centreline - to define the river name, and direction of flow. More > importantly, using both ways and areas would render the way we'd expect; > wider when zoomed out because the way is rendering wider than the area; > wider when zoomed in because we are seeing the visible extent of the area, > and we can have street names rendered in the right direction down the Yep, it seems to work well in practice, too. A map that is all areas and no lines isn't really a map anymore, it's a floor plan or a diagram. Maps intentionally simplify the real world, to make it easier to understand. > centreline. For routers we can continue to follow the ways as "navigation > paths", ignoring areas, and we can define the direction of travel for > one-way streets. Surely a good router would find paths within areas that are not along its boundaries...? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use > highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use > highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1] Boy, I like this way of thinking. Of course, it must be controversial given the preceding comments, but it does make a lot of sense. Not really sure what a bridleway is in practice, but we do have rail trails that allow all three modes, and a couple of long distance trails that allow all three, but are really best suited to horses (too far between camps for walkers, too rough for cyclists). >* "access" tags such as foot or bicycle. (So highway=cycleway, foot=no would cover the rare case of a cycleway from which pedestrians are banned.) I've used this a few times. It crops up in my area where there are two distinct paths, one for bikes and one for pedestrians, and they follow slightly different routes. (See the Bay Trail between St Kilda and Elwood, Victoria, Australia for example...) To expand on the semantics of what you posted: highway=footway -> purpose built path for pedestrians highway=cycleway -> purpose built path for pedestrians and/or cyclists, with all the characteristics of a bike path (no steps, no kerbs, width >1m), no restrictions against bikes Agree? Then we can keep it totally empirical and objective, without worrying about whether the thing is labelled "xxx bike path" or was intended for that purpose. In particular, I'm thinking of lots of paths that were built with pedestrians in mind, before the cycling revolution came along... >highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's >intended for pedestrian and cycle use. There's no suggestion of primacy for >either. Cool. So again, "cycleway" is a statement of the quality and attributes of the path, rather than implying any design decisions, rules, usage etc. Next question: how popular is this viewpoint? Is this a minority way of thinking? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Steve Bennett wrote: > Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely > nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to > cycling over walking. Conundrum. highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's intended for pedestrian and cycle use. There's no suggestion of primacy for either. (Incidentally, I missed out the footnote from my last mail, which was going to say that in some countries (like the UK) cycles are permitted on bridleways; nonetheless it's most sensible to treat highway=bridleway as a path for pedestrian and horse use, and tag over and above that if it's a cyclable one.) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Thanks all, these are very good replies. I'll have to ponder for a bit. One complication that I should perhaps have mentioned is at the moment I'm doing a lot of the mapping based on NearMap aerial maps, so I can't actually observe local practice to see what's going on. Which is why I'm inferring as much as possible from things like the location of the path: near houses, or in the middle of the bush... Sometimes you can make out painted bike signs on the ground, sometimes you can't. Another tricky aspect is that the rules about what bikes can do vary from council to council. It came up in the news recently that if you ride a bike in a park in the City of Melbourne (ie, the most central suburb), it's a $200 fine. No other inner city suburb bans bikes from parks... I'm still a bit confused by the notion of a "cycleway" - perhaps because we don't use that term here at all, we say "bike path". OSM is obviously an empirical process, and empirically, there is very little or no difference between a "footpath" and a "bike path": they're both paved, about a metre wide, and connect useful places together. In the absence of signs, I don't see how there would be any satisfactory way to decide whether something was a "cycleway" or a "footway", if those are the only two choices. And with so little to distinguish them, there must be a big grey area. I guess I've seen true "cycleways" in places like the Netherlands, where it's a genuine single-purpose path between two villages, crowded with bikes. But there is barely anything like that here - it's always multi-purpose. As an example: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/RoadsAndProjects/RoadProjects/WesternSuburbs/DeerParkBypass.htm Now, in common language, everyone would refer to this as a bike path. It clearly has great interest to cyclists, as does the whole network of "trails". But there's nothing about it that says it's a "bike path" - it's called a "wellness trail" and is for "walking and cycling". Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to cycling over walking. Conundrum. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my > area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway, > and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch > describes "path" as "unofficial path" - making it sound like an > unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass. highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1] Useful tags you can add to modify the above: * "access" tags such as foot or bicycle. (So highway=cycleway, foot=no would cover the rare case of a cycleway from which pedestrians are banned.) * designation=whatever - for the official status of a path. (For example, in the UK, you might have highway=bridleway, designation=restricted_byway.) * surface=tarmac | grass | dirt | gravel | whatever highway=path is an invention of the wikifiddlers and not needed in 99% of cases. The one case that isn't adequately covered by the above is what some people call "pathways of desire" - informal shortcuts that were never really laid out as a footpath. Like you say, an unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass. So: > 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were > probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too. highway=footway. You could add cycle=yes if bikes are permitted to use them; or upgrade to highway=cycleway if they have the width/surface etc. that characterises a cycleway. > 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved, > and connecting streets together. highway=cycleway. > 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways. > Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of > them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too. highway=cycleway. If there's a dotted line you could add segregated=yes. > 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are lots of > sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're normally blocked > off, and used mainly by contractors before and after the grand prix. > The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and cyclists. I had > marked them "highway=unclassified" but now I think "highway=track > surface=paved" would be better? Without knowing the exact place, probably something like: highway=service, access=private, bicycle=permissive, foot=permissive > 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. For > example, a bike path passes close to the end of a cul-de-sac. There's > no actual paved or dirt path, but a cyclist could easily cross a metre > or two of grass (possibly dismounting). It seems crucial for routing > to make connections here. So I've been adding "highway=path". Is there > a better tag? highway=path is well-suited for this. > 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people > wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of > responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the > OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough > to give options like "how far are you willing to push the bike" or > "are you willing to cut across grass?" etc. cyclestreets.net is an OSM-based routing site with an option for pushing your bike, so yes, there is. > 7) Big open concrete spaces that are eminently navigable by > pedestrians and cyclists, but aren't exactly pedestrian malls. I have no idea about landuse types so will leave this to others! All IMO, of course. I've cross-posted this to the tagging@ list which is better suited for this kind of discussion. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Steve This is a big topic that has been very extensively discussed in this group (and elsewhere). There is quite a range of opinion and, perhaps inevitably, to some extent the opinions reflect (a) whether mappers see themselves primarily as walkers, cyclists or ... mappers! and (b) the geographical location of the mapper. The UK (or at least England and Wales) has developed a quite sophisticated system based around the local legislation on public rights of way - but, given your reference to Albert Park, you will probably want to stand this on its head (:>). There are quite a lot of tags to look at: Highway= Surface= Tracktype= Foot ¦ Bicycle ¦ Motorcar = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no Designated = I wont bore you with my own practice (and this will perhaps avoid starting up once more one of the long discussions we've had) beyond saying that I would recommend that you avoid the use of highway=path except for very ill-defined and unofficial paths (in your own words "an unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass") and give preference to highway=footway ¦ track ¦ cycleway. Given the controversies over the relative rights and priorities for different classes of user (e.g. foot ¦ bicycle ¦ horse) and the large regional differences between what is or is not permitted on different classes of way (ranging from "everyman's right to wander" as in Germany and most Nordic countries) to the strictly legalistic "public rights of way" system in England where there is only a legal right where this is recorded and defined) I would suggest that useful general guidelines are: - record what is there on the ground by observation of state or signage. - do not tag to make the maps render nicely - the renderers will eventually catch up with what mappers do. - add legal rights where you are sure about them e.g. by using the designation= tag. - be as explicit as possible as to what class of user may be able to use the way (whether in practice or by right) as this will help clarify where one person might call something a 'footway' and another a 'cycleway' - something like foot=yes, bicycle=permissive is at least fairly explicit. Before I get flamed - these are only my ideas and others may well differ - but I've tried to keep it general as to practice and geography ... Give my regards to Melbourne! Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com] > Sent: 28 November 2009 08:24 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... > > Hi all, > (Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my > head around them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, > please point me at it)... > > I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths > around my area, and am having trouble deciding when to use > path, when footway, and when cycleway. I'm particularly > troubled by the way Potlatch describes "path" as "unofficial > path" - making it sound like an unpaved line of footprints > carved through the grass. > > Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios: > 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I > guess were probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists > use them too. > Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them > "highway=path, bicycle=yes" (to be safe). > > 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually > paved, and connecting streets together. > > 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways. > Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people > think of them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too. > "highway=cycleway, foot=yes" seems the most satisfying, but > according to the definition, it should just be a "path"? I > tend to assume it's a cycleway if the gap between two > entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or so... > > 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are > lots of sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're > normally blocked off, and used mainly by contractors before > and after the grand prix. > The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and > cyclists. I had marked them "highway=unclassified" but now I > think "highway=track surface=paved" would be better? > > 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. > For example, a bike path passes close to the end of a > cul-de-sac. There's no actual paved or dirt path, but a > cyclist could easily cross a metre or two of grass (possibly > dismounting). It seems crucial for routing to make > connections here. So I've been adding "highway=path". Is > there a better tag? > > 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most > people wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the > division of responsibility for correctly handling bike > routing lies, between the OSM data, and the routing software. > Is there any software smart enough to give options like "how > far are you willi
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
highway=path foot=yes bicycle=no mtb=yes highway=footway implies foot=designated and highway=cycleway implies bicycle=designated. foot=yes means you can walk there while designated means it's the primary choise of route for pedestrians. See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness Konrad 2009/11/28 Steve Bennett : > [...] > > 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people > wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of > responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the > OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough > to give options like "how far are you willing to push the bike" or > "are you willing to cut across grass?" etc. An example is at a > university I used to ride through to get to work. I used to ride > around the side of an oval, and cut down through some trees on an a > true "unofficial path" - basically mountain biking. Do you mark it in > as an unofficial walking path, and tag it with appropriate mountain > biking paths, and assume the bike routing software is smart enough not > to route city bikes that way? > > Maybe I'm looking for a distinction between "bicycle=no" and > "bicycle=forbidden". > > [...] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Using osmosis with --bounding-polygon
Hello people, I would've sent this to osmosis-talk@, but we only have osmosis-dev@ there :) -- sorry if this might be slightly OT here. I'm trying to create small dumps following some administrative borders. For example, starting from the Italy planet, I'd like to create dumps of regions and provinces. Here's what I did: a) download the members of the proper relation with JOSM (maybe I could automate this with osmosis) b) manually edit (some scripting will soon come) the ways to remove and only add polygon_file="foo.poly" and polygon_id="way_N" c) give this .osm to osm2poly, and hijack the output to "foo.poly" [1] d) run osmosis (from the SVN checkout, in my case) on it: $ bin/osmosis --read-api left=12.373 right=12.886 bottom=37.573 top=37.89 \ > --bounding-polygon file="../mazara.poly" idTrackerType="BitSet" \ > completeWays="yes" --write-xml file="../mazara-poly.osm" What I get in "mazara-poly.osm" is some ways, not all the objects contained within the polygon. If I skip "completeWays=yes", I'm only getting a bunch of nodes (the dump seems ok, but josm only shows some nodes). With completeWays=yes, I'm getting _some_ ways, i.e. those crossing the borders of the polygon, plus some others inside (connected to the former ones). But I'm not getting (almost) any way starting and ending within the polygon, nor any node/building/anything else. I'm also getting a small adjacent administrative border, but this would be a minor issue at the current state. Any help would be much apreciated :) Kindly, David [1] http://people.debian.org/~dapal/mazara.poly -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
>> Using areas seems like a lot of work for no benefit if you just need a >> simple 2 lane road that has no foot paths or other interesting >> features. > > Are you saying that you wouldn't find mapping areas satisfying? If so, > that's fine - you don't have to. > > But for people who want to do it, they should be able to. That's what > this thread is about - giving them a way to map the world more > accurately, if that's what they're into. > There's nothing stopping anyone mapping highways as areas. However, it could be a long time until routers and renderers catch up; the majority of the world wouldn't be able to position the areas accurately enough to make this worthwhile; GPS errors approaching the size of some roads; no suitable aerial imagery; lack of time to get the theodolite out everywhere... For renderers: *nearly all maps exaggerate road width except when really zoomed in. A 30-35 metre wide motorway would appear almost insignificant at z levels less than 10 or 12 - but this is precisely the opposite of what we'd want; motorways should be significant roads when zoomed out. You'd have to find a way of expanding the areas to make these more significant. For routers: *routing over areas is much harder than routing along ways between nodes. Directions are not defined so one-ways are meaningless. You could do routing over areas, with some pre-processing, but it would 'break' a number of existing established routers In summary, I have no problem with people mapping everything as areas; however, I believe for the moment we will have to use both areas and ways. Most wide rivers mapped as areas I've seen also have a way down the centreline - to define the river name, and direction of flow. More importantly, using both ways and areas would render the way we'd expect; wider when zoomed out because the way is rendering wider than the area; wider when zoomed in because we are seeing the visible extent of the area, and we can have street names rendered in the right direction down the centreline. For routers we can continue to follow the ways as "navigation paths", ignoring areas, and we can define the direction of travel for one-way streets. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tags for autorickshaw
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, John Smith wrote: > 2009/11/28 Konrad Skeri : > > They could be put as fee=prepaid/metered/unmetered > > Perhaps not optimal, but not entierly wrong. > > metering=prepaid/metered/unmetered > ?? charging=prepaid/metered/unmetered ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tags for autorickshaw
2009/11/28 Konrad Skeri : > They could be put as fee=prepaid/metered/unmetered > Perhaps not optimal, but not entierly wrong. metering=prepaid/metered/unmetered ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Le samedi 28 novembre 2009, Steve Bennett a écrit : > 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were > probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too. > Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them "highway=path, > bicycle=yes" (to be safe). If you use highway=path and not highway=footway, then you should also add foot=yes (or even foot=designated if appropriate). If I understand correctly http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path adding a bicycle=yes to a highway=path means that only bicycles are allowed (whereas highway=path alone would mean "any non-motorized vehicle"). -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Hi all, (Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my head around them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, please point me at it)... I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway, and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch describes "path" as "unofficial path" - making it sound like an unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass. Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios: 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too. Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them "highway=path, bicycle=yes" (to be safe). 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved, and connecting streets together. 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways. Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too. "highway=cycleway, foot=yes" seems the most satisfying, but according to the definition, it should just be a "path"? I tend to assume it's a cycleway if the gap between two entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or so... 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are lots of sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're normally blocked off, and used mainly by contractors before and after the grand prix. The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and cyclists. I had marked them "highway=unclassified" but now I think "highway=track surface=paved" would be better? 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. For example, a bike path passes close to the end of a cul-de-sac. There's no actual paved or dirt path, but a cyclist could easily cross a metre or two of grass (possibly dismounting). It seems crucial for routing to make connections here. So I've been adding "highway=path". Is there a better tag? 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough to give options like "how far are you willing to push the bike" or "are you willing to cut across grass?" etc. An example is at a university I used to ride through to get to work. I used to ride around the side of an oval, and cut down through some trees on an a true "unofficial path" - basically mountain biking. Do you mark it in as an unofficial walking path, and tag it with appropriate mountain biking paths, and assume the bike routing software is smart enough not to route city bikes that way? Maybe I'm looking for a distinction between "bicycle=no" and "bicycle=forbidden". 7) Big open concrete spaces that are eminently navigable by pedestrians and cyclists, but aren't exactly pedestrian malls. For example, big spaces in business parks, or around big public buildings. Mark them pedestrian anyway? Thanks all, Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
