Re: [talk-au] Perth cycle paths (Sam Wilson)

[iansteer]

I see no harm in reverting the deletion of the routes.  While aaronsta may
have been correct in the strictest sense of the rules to delete stuff "where
there's nothing on the ground", I can only see benefit (and no harm) in
leaving these route relations in place.  There are times when some
discretion can be used when applying rules, and I believe this is one such
time.

Ian Steer


Message: 1
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 20:38:18 +0800
From: Sam Wilson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Perth cycle paths
Message-ID: <75fe9135-e14a-b620-6b1f-005942503...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Revisiting a discussion from February about the cycle paths in Perth:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/need-to-reinstate-deleted-pbn-bicycle-
routes-perth-western-australia/1873



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[iansteer]

I think that unless there is explicit signage forbidding bicycles, the ways
should be constructed to permit bicycles (particularly if usage of bicycles
on that path is common).  In other words, use highway=path (always my
preferred), or if you must use highway=footway, add bicycle=yes.

Ian


>Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:14:32 +1000
>From: Andrew Harvey 
>To: Tony Forster 
>Cc: Sebastian Azagra Flores , OSM Australian Talk
>   List 
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits
>Message-ID:
>   
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>Hi Tony and Sebastian,

>There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care
deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best intentions
to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're both >engaging
in discussion of the actual changes so to me everything I see is happening
in good faith. From a DWG perspective it doesn't appear there is any malice
here.

>Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things should
be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's on the
ground.

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions provides
some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in my view we
should be using bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for >bicycles
weather that is by paint or signage bicycle=no where there is clear no
bicycles signage

>In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does appear
to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's currently
mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is a >signposted
bicycle route which takes you through that way I think that should be enough
to give it implied bicycle access, therefore bicycle=yes.

>Is there a wider community view about this?


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[iansteer]

Thanks for the tip about the "change" tag.

 

So here is what I've done - does it sound right?

 

- in the section where the slip lane joins the 2-lane through road (where
lanes=3), I have added:  "change:lanes=not_right|not_left| "  

(this hopefully means that the left hand lane cannot change lanes to the
right, and the middle lane cannot change lanes to the left)

 

- then in the next section where turn left and right slip lanes are added
(where lanes=5), I have added"  "change:lanes= |not_right|not_left|| "

(which hopefully means: the left slip lane can do as it pleases, the 2nd
lane (the left-most of the 3 through lanes) cannot change right, the middle
of the 3 through lanes cannot change left, and the other 2 right-most lanes
can do as they please)

 

I'd be very interested to see what a routing engine does at the point where
the slip lane joins the 2 through lanes.  That is, does it associate the
slip lane with the left-most of the through lanes and hence know a vehicle
can't jump from the slip lane to the centre lane at the instant - or do the
lanes go into a "melting pot" with no association?  Similarly where lanes=3
changes to lanes=5 where the turn left and right slip lanes are added.

 

Ian

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[iansteer]

This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but
I'll start a new thread so as not to distract the original.

 

"  'Don't split ways if there is no physical separation' is one of the core
tenets of highway mapping in OSM."

 

My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while
abiding by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as best I can
without being able to resort to a sketch:

 

- there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin
Highways)

- there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 2
lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south)

- from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through
lanes)

- from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the traffic
lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close - hundreds
of metres)

- however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2
continuing lanes - right to the next intersection

- this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right at the
next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the solid white
line

 

This has currently been mapped "as normal", ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 lane
road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point.

 

Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the next
intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped so people
coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next intersection?

 

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[iansteer]

> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:32:26 +1100
> From: "Phil Wyatt" 
> To: ,  
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)
> Message-ID: <004d01d81ed6$7979f520$6c6ddf60$@wyatt-family.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hi Ian and Thorsten,
> 
> I was also thinking that there may be instances where the grade is not
signed
> but is known from things like brochures etc. This may well be mainstream
> information from the operator but not located on site.
>
> Cheers - Phil
> 

Yep, makes sense - the subtleties can be mentioned in the Wiki

Ian


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging

[iansteer]

> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 01:11:54 +1000
> From: 
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging
>   Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
> Message-ID: <045901d81e90$8c77e060$a567a120$@thorsten.engler.id.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> Well, he has answered a changeset comment:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116656873
> 
> I'll leave it to the WA OSM community if that's a valid reason to simply
delete
> a whole bunch of routes for which there definitely are signs on the
ground,
> and what to do about it.
> 

I am from Perth, and am a cyclist.  I agree with aaronsta that these routes
are pretty useless.  I have often looked at the signage and wondered about
OSM & the usefulness of the routes.  I might not have gone to the extent of
deleting them, but it is probably the right thing to do (they are
pretty-much obsolete and I doubt if anyone uses them)

Ian


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[iansteer]

Message: 2

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:26:38 +1100

From: "Phil Wyatt" mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >

To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

Message-ID: <007601d81e0c$7f095af0$7d1c10d0$@wyatt-family.com
 >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

>Hi Folks,

>Thanks for the great discussion on this issue. I have tried to summarise
the discussion and it seems like there is some consensus around the
following tagging

>hiking_scale:awtgs= as the general tag for the grade of the WHOLE track as
that is what is detailed in the AWTGS guidelines 

>and

>source:hiking_scale:awtgs= for the source of the data with values such as

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=user  - Where a user has defined the
grading

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=operator  - Where the grading has
been applied by the operator of the track (and the operator should also be
applied to the track)

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=as_signed  - Where the data has come
from a sign located at the start of the track

>There has also been some discussion on sections of track being graded as
well. I think this needs further work as it doesn?t seem to match the
guidelines and may also depend on how operators have defined the tracks >ie
Is the Larapinta ?Track? all graded the same or are ?sections? rated
differently? I know in the case of Tasmania the Overland Track that PWS has
a single grading for the whole track but some other websites have >graded
each ?section/days travel?.

>There also needs to some further clarification if this goes on the ways or
relations in regards to longer defined tracks with relations.

>If we are close then I reckon an updated wiki with these values on both

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks and

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bush_Walk
ing_and_Cycling_Tracks

>Cheers - Phil

 

That sounds great to me Phil (nearly ready for me to reapply my deleted
tags).  

However, I'm not sure I understand the difference between your suggested
sources "operator" and "as_signed".  I suggested "as-signed", but surely the
operator is the body that installs the signs - so wouldn't they normally
mean the same thing ?

regards

Ian

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[iansteer]

>> I think the AWTGS is a reasonable starting point for a trail/track
difficulty scale that's relevant to Australia.

>> However, I wasn't clear whether Grade 5 was supposed to cover everything
above Grade 4, or whether there were things harder than Grade 5.

>> If the former, I'd think there would need to be a better way of breaking
down Grade 5. Otherwise, it will cover too wide a range of walks from the
slightly rough to the genuinely hair-raising

>> If the latter, then there's a gap at the harder end.

>> Michael's categories below are also quite good (though I feel like the
"push-chair/stroller" should be in the "elderly mother" category?!)

>> cheers

>> Tom

 

I think we should just stick with the AWTGS as it stands.  It seems to be
gaining widespread government support, and even if it is not perfect, it
seems like a standard that is going to stay with us.

 

I also don't see any reason why it needs to be compared to the SAC scale.
It is its own, self-contained Australian standard.

 

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[iansteer]

If we agree that the Australian Walking Track Grading System is worth
tagging, the next question is how to tag it?

The couple I have tagged, I just did "awtgs="

I heard back from the German guy who deleted my tags (he was apologetic) and
he said he thought it was a simple misspelling of a tag because there were
only a few in the whole database.

His suggestions were:

- use "hiking_scale:awtgs" (says there are hundreds of "hiking_scale" tags
in the European Alps

- get it into the Wiki

 

Ian

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[iansteer]

I strongly prefer highway=path over highway=footway.

 

Most "paths" that get tagged as footways are not signed to say that bicycles
are NOT permitted - hence bicycles ARE permitted.  Hence, if a path is
tagged as a footway, you then need to go and add a 2nd tag "bicycle=yes" -
otherwise routers won't route a bicycle on that path (I've lost count of the
number of times I've had to add that tag.)

 

It is much simpler (and less chance of being incorrect) to simply tag
"highway=path" - and "highway=footway" adds no more information than
"highway=path"  (it just says "it's a path you can walk on" - which is
assumed by when something is tagged as "highway=path").

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[iansteer]

I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading
System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire
Management -
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/austr
alian-walking-track-grading-system).  The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.

 

It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD
and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.

 

I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a
"Class") as "awtgs=" (however someone in Germany has since deleted those
tags without reference to me!)

 

Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled "Walking Tracks, Part 1:
Classification and signage".  However, I don't have a subscription to read
the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other
documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels

 

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[iansteer]

Personally, I'm not too fussed about mapping to suit trail bikes in the bush
- they go anywhere they feel like anyway :-)  The main advantage of mapping
it as a path is that 4WDs won't get routed down them.

However, while the OSM definition for path does include the words " and not
intended for motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately".  Does "unless
tagged so separately" mean you could add the tag "motorcycles=yes" to the
path ??

I also wouldn't worry about how difficult it would be to walk or ride a
bicycle on a motor bike path - as long as it is possible for athletic &
skilled people to do so.  Even Class 5 walking tracks are classified as
paths.  There are all sorts of tags that can be used to classify the
difficulty of the "track" (that I'm not familiar with).

Ian

>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 12:39:30 +1100
>From: "EON4wd" 
>To: ,   
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails."
>   specifically motor bikes
>That would be logical, but motor bikes are classified as a vehicle and are
the only ones using this 'path' which ends up being mapped as a track via
the satellite picture.
>Path does not imply motor bikes. 
>Legally it is allowed to be used as a path, but motor vehicles are not
allowed.
>The motor bike tracks would be difficult to use as a walking track and also
for a bicycle.
>If the tracks were reclassified as a path, it would at least show something
that is on the ground plus also imply that it is not allowed for vehicles.
>What if the motor bike track is legal, how would you then classify the
track if it is not wide enough for any car?
>Thanks Ian

 


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[iansteer]

I've always mapped a track that's not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path.

 

Ian

 

 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100

From: "EON4wd" mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> >

To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in
Nerang

National Park)

Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au
 >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

>>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike.
There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate. 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[iansteer]

I'm unsure in how to apply the AWTGS to walking/hiking paths.

 

I followed through a very long OSM discussion thread from 2020, but didn't
see any resolution(I don't think the discussion was Australian specific)

 

What are others doing ?

 

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Editing road geometry Australia

[iansteer]

I also agree with the Telenav approach for the WA intersection (the other is 
unnecessarily complicated).

Ian


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalk vs Footpath?

[iansteer]

As much as it irks me to have Americanisms creep into our language (and it irks 
me a great deal!), I agree with you - sidewalk is more definitive.


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:57:05 +1000
From: Andrew Harvey 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Sidewalk vs Footpath?
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Personally I refer to the path next to the road designed for pedestrians as the 
footpath, assuming sidewalk is an american term not really used in Australian 
English.

So I had set the translation of "sidewalk" in the iD editor for Australian 
English to Footpath, however it seems this is causing confusion and leading to 
people inadvertently tagging paths not going along side the road as a sidewalk.

At the moment iD has two presets "Foot path" (highway=footway) and "Footpath" 
(highway=footway, footway=sidewalk).

I see now that's just confusing, so I think we should just change this back to 
sidewalk as it's probably understood by most Australians and it's clearer about 
the distinction between highway=footway and highway=footway, footway=sidewalk.

Anyone have any thoughts?



--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 135, Issue 9
***


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

[iansteer]

Thanks to Phil & Marc (whose replies are below).  I finally got back to having 
a look at this after gathering some more data of lanes to be mapped.

The "overtaking" key seems only applicable to 2 lane roads (one each direction) 
- is that correct ?

The "change" key looks very promising, but the example only shows a 
one-directional, 3-lane road, and I'm not sure how to apply it to my situation 
- which is:

- An extra lane has been periodically added to create a short length (eg 1km) 
of 3-lane road (2 lanes one direction, and 1 in the other).
- in most cases, the 1 lane direction is NOT permitted to use the extra lane 
(only for use by the 2 lane direction)
- in a few cases, the 1 lane direction IS permitted to use the added lane (if 
it is clear of oncoming traffic) - at least for part of the 3 lane section.

--- Do you think I can use the example from 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change if the 3rd lane is 
in the other direction ? (by using the "lanes" key to define the forwards and 
backwards lane quantities)

Ian



From: Phil (The Geek) Wyatt  
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2018 3:22 PM
To: ianst...@iinet.net.au
Subject: RE: [talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

click on the overpass turbo link in the right hand side bar of this page

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking

-Original Message-
From: Marc Gemis  
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2018 6:38 PM
To: ianst...@iinet.net.au
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

possible tags:

lanes, lanes:forward, lanes:backward, change:lanes:forward, 
change:lanes:backward

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:11 AM,   wrote:
> Can someone point me to some examples of the correct method of mapping 
> overtaking lanes on country highways?
>
>
>
> I need examples for where it is both permissible and not permissible 
> for the contrary direction to use the overtaking lane.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[iansteer]

--
>>
> I have been “guilty” of adding small fords and culverts on bush tracks 
> because JOSM gives me an error message if you have a waterway crossing a way 
> without some sort of bridge, Ford, etc - and I try to avoid doing edits and 
> leaving errors/warnings.
>

>If the fords and culverts are real then there is no problem.

>But adding things that are not there just to remove some error/warning is not 
>good. They should be left as >errors//warnings.

>Only when the crossing can be resolved into a ford or culvert should that 
>feature be added.
>Otherwise an addition to solve an error/warning might be made that is wrong 
>... there could be a bridge!


I have only ever mapped what is on the ground.  There's always some way for a 
path the cross a stream - ford, culvert, bridge etc.  It just seems a bit 
trivial when you have a path crossing a mapped stream that is so small you can 
jump across it.

Ian

--

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 21:35:42 +1000
From: Andrew Harvey 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland Govt Spatial Catalogue
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Surfacing an old thread here as there have been recent developments.

The "Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries" dataset from QSpatial[1] has 
been previously imported by QldProtectedAreas[2]. It's CC BY 3.0 AU licensed, 
but the data custodian (Department of Environment and Science) has completed 
the OSMF CC BY waiver[3] clearing the data for use in OSM from a licensing 
perspective. The data custodian only agreed to complete the waiver for that 
specific dataset due to concerns about the data quality of other datasets.

As far as I'm aware we haven't been able to get the waiver completed by other 
departments who publish their data on QSpatial and we have no QSpatial blanket 
waiver, only this specific dataset.

Is anyone interested in updating OSM based on some of the new data from this 
dataset? A quick scan in QGIS there are some differences (mostly due to new 
data published on QSpatial) but mostly it's consistent.

To compare the two I,

1. Downloaded queensland.osm.pdf extract from 
http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/
2. Extracted protected areas from that file with:
osmium tags-filter --overwrite -o qld-protected-areas.osm.pbf 
queensland.osm.pbf nwr/boundary=protected_area,national_park,state_forest

Giving https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson from QSpatial and 
https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson from OSM which can be 
compared in QGIS or JOSM using the GeoJSON plugin.

[1] http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas
[3]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf

On 26 January 2016 at 21:35, Nev Wedding  wrote:

> Hi
> I have been browsing the Queensland Spatial Catalogue and noticed the 
> following
>
> Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries  Published date -
> 11 Jun 2015
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Protected%20areas%20of%20Queensland%20-%20boundaries%
> 22
>
> Nature refuges and coordinated conservation Date published -14 Sep 2012
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Nature%20refuges%20and%20coordinated%
> 20conservation%20areas%22
>
> ** Has this been imported and if not do we have permission to use to 
> edit/update the OSM
>
>
> Others I noticed that may be useful were Local government area 
> boundaries http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Local%20government%20area%20boundaries%20-%20Queensla
> nd%
> 22
> Locality boundaries
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Locality%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>
> All are licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia 
> licence.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 131, Issue 19



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

[iansteer]

Can someone point me to some examples of the correct method of mapping
overtaking lanes on country highways?

 

I need examples for where it is both permissible and not permissible for the
contrary direction to use the overtaking lane.

 

Thanks

 

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au