Re: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Liz wrote: we're having another discussion about this same point concurrently on t...@openstreetmap.org and making a number of suggestions there care to join in? bum steer tagg...@openstreetmap.org And can I again please direct you to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path If you want to find a resolution to the footway/cycleway/path thing, please contribute your thoughts there. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: And can I again please direct you to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path If you want to find a resolution to the footway/cycleway/path thing, please contribute your thoughts there. My feeling is that it would be best to work out what the Australian mapping community wants, then just tell the rest of the wiki. True international normalisation is probably really hard and not worth it. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: And can I again please direct you to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path If you want to find a resolution to the footway/cycleway/path thing, please contribute your thoughts there. My feeling is that it would be best to work out what the Australian mapping community wants, then just tell the rest of the wiki. True international normalisation is probably really hard and not worth it. This is where meta information stored in state/country boundaries could be useful, although that in itself could be a slippery slope of storing too much data in meta lookup tables essentially... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:40 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: This is where meta information stored in state/country boundaries could be useful, although that in itself could be a slippery slope of storing too much data in meta lookup tables essentially... Yeah. I don't think the slope is all that slippery. Lots of stuff is essentially the same across countries, or the differences relate to very specific information like speed limits, widths, etc, rather than basic considerations like access. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Yeah. I don't think the slope is all that slippery. Lots of stuff is What I meant is, storing this type of information in meta data could end up being a dumping ground for a lot of things beyond simple differences between whatever is considered the most common. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Australian Cycleways
I've just put a lot of definitions on the wiki stolen from (and attributed to) the Australian Road Rules concerning the various types of footpaths and bicycle paths and lanes We have Shared Path to be tagged 'footway' with bicycle=yes I'd like to suggest that a shared path has been designed for bicycle use with regard to width, surface, gradient, visibility requirements and that tagging it as a 'cycleway' with foot=yes (exactly as a separated path) would be of assistance to routing software, which could otherwise send a cyclist down a road because the primary tag was 'footway' liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Evan Sebire wrote: Why are we still using cycleway/footway, please describe only the properties of the path. If the routing/rendering software is dumb/simple that doesn't mean we must be! The tags for describing paths properties are fairly stable and that is what the software should be using. Smoothness, width, surface and incline. I find the tagging of a shared path as cycleway with foot=yes, horse=yes etc silly. Using only the 'no' attribute would make much more sense. So a shared path could be simply tagged as highway=path, and then describe its properties. Hopefully with the time many attributes are recorded against a path and the user can make up his/her own mind whether the activity they want to do is suitable to the path. i.e. Is it to Steep? we're having another discussion about this same point concurrently on t...@openstreetmap.org and making a number of suggestions there care to join in? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Cycleways
Liz wrote: On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, John Henderson wrote: without changing any of the track/cycleway/path stuff mark a shared path as highway=cycleway because then they are visible as cycleways to the renderer and to the router. the presence of a painted line down the middle of the track is the only difference between the different forms of Shared Path and Segregated Path from the point of view of a cyclist looking for a suitable route OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll now happily continue planning my OSM article for the Canberra Cyclist magazine, put out by Pedal Power ACT. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
