Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network Route 55

2017-10-09 Thread Philip Barnes 
On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 18:11 +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 16:35 +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I noticed when plotting a route on cycle.travel that the relation for
> NCN 55 http://osm.org/relation/37734 was deleted, presumably by
> mistake, in this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/521
> 18445. Is there a way to reinstate it without manually re-adding all
> the contituent parts.
> 
> Hi Adam
> 
> I am looking at it.
> 
All fixed in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52766965

It needs looking at still, there is a big hole between Stafford and
Stoke and a spur towards Bolton.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network Route 55

2017-10-09 Thread Philip Barnes 
On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 16:35 +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi all,

I noticed when plotting a route on cycle.travel that the relation for
NCN 55 http://osm.org/relation/37734 was deleted, presumably by
mistake, in this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52118
445. Is there a way to reinstate it without manually re-adding all the
contituent parts.

Hi Adam

I am looking at it.

Cheers 
Phil (trigpoint)


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

[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network Route 55

2017-10-09 Thread Adam Snape 
Hi all,

I noticed when plotting a route on cycle.travel that the relation for NCN
55 http://osm.org/relation/37734 was deleted, presumably by mistake, in
this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52118445. Is there a
way to reinstate it without manually re-adding all the contituent parts.

Thanks

Adam
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

2017-10-09 Thread Adam Snape 
Okay, To summarise the discussion so far. Most respondents thought that
highway=living_street was not the correct tag for shared use. Nobody
explicitly supported this usage. Most seemed to think that there should be
a specific tag for shared use to be used in addition to established tags
such as access, surface etc.
shared_use=yes, traffic_calming=shared_use and highway=shared_use were
suggested as tags, with no-one so far objecting to the simple tag
shared_use=yes initially suggested by Colin Smale.

Does anyone have any further suggestions or object to the use of
shared_use=yes? If it is acceptable I propose to change the roads in
Preston back to their prior highway classification (unclassified and
tertiary) and add the shared_use=yes tag.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 4 October 2017 at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Matt Ellery wrote:
> > I agree with the idea that living_street isn't appropriate for the
> > town centre roads identified here. I did notice that New Road
> > in Brighton (mentioned in the shared space Wikipedia article)
> > has also been changed to living_street by Pete Owens, although
> > he has added access tags as well.
>
> Frideswide Square in Oxford too. I've not changed it back until we're sure
> how we'd tag shared space, but agree it should remain highway=primary
> rather
> than =living_street.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb