Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
Paul Johnson wrote: > I'd be more inclined to believe this if you weren't the only one arguing > this and you had some local knowledge, and similar local/express > arrangements are tagged in the same manner in Texas when I was looking > for how to tag that section. As you're aware, I disagree with the motorway_link tagging, just not strongly enough to start an edit war over it. In the specific area under discussion, most of Skelly is not in fact used functionally as a motorway_link. Also, I have seen several locations in Dallas that have a similar real-world use that are not tagged motorway_link. JMHO, -Nathan___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 03/06/2011 03:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 3/6/2011 2:30 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> On 03/05/2011 08:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >>> On 3/5/2011 7:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38 based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with a more direct route taking the motorway_link Skelly Drive to get under I 44 at Darlington. >>> >>> Why is a frontage road tagged as motorway_link? >> >> It's a freeway in the local/express arrangement, which is common in the >> southern plains. > > It's a frontage road with driveways and local streets intersecting on > both sides. Only the slip ramps between the freeway itself (I-44) and > the frontage roads should be tagged highway=motorway_link in the areas > with frontage roads. I'd be more inclined to believe this if you weren't the only one arguing this and you had some local knowledge, and similar local/express arrangements are tagged in the same manner in Texas when I was looking for how to tag that section. This is compounded by an extended history of inserting your opinion where your local knowledge isn't, and where your knowledge of live usage is critically impaired. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 3/6/2011 2:30 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 03/05/2011 08:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 3/5/2011 7:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38 based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with a more direct route taking the motorway_link Skelly Drive to get under I 44 at Darlington. Why is a frontage road tagged as motorway_link? It's a freeway in the local/express arrangement, which is common in the southern plains. It's a frontage road with driveways and local streets intersecting on both sides. Only the slip ramps between the freeway itself (I-44) and the frontage roads should be tagged highway=motorway_link in the areas with frontage roads. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 03/05/2011 08:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 3/5/2011 7:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38 >> based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to >> see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with >> a more direct route taking the motorway_link Skelly Drive to get under I >> 44 at Darlington. > > Why is a frontage road tagged as motorway_link? It's a freeway in the local/express arrangement, which is common in the southern plains. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Please don't do this, as mappers may have completely opposite ideas > of what is ideal or scary. +1. OSM is for facts, not subjective judgments. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bike-Pedestrian-directions-on-the-MQ-Open-sites-tp6088561p6094044.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
What about the Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) score, where it is available? -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Mar 5, 2011 8:09 PM, wrote: ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote: > > knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will find > tags we've missed that should or could be used for bike/pedestrian. If you > feel its worth mentioning, please please please provide some point of > reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a link to a route on the open > mapquest site where it isnt going thru a feature you think it should. > Thanks. Hmm, I just tried it out and wondered why this route completely avoided a very nice bike trail: http://open.mapquest.com/link/3-HcbmL9UO What tags is the route planner looking for when considering bicycle routing? Otherwise, I think the MapQuest Open service is great! -- Jeff Ollie ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
Instead of a simple preferred/avoid flag, it would be better to tag issues such as hill steepness, traffic levels, presence or absence of bike lanes, and the like, so that prospective riders will have a basis for making their own decisions. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites >From :mailto:nerou...@gmail.com Date :Sat Mar 05 19:59:29 America/Chicago 2011 On 3/5/2011 7:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >Something that would be nice but isn't as > critical is to pick up on bicycle=preferred/avoid cues for ways that > have been observed by mappers to be ideal/scary to use by bicycle. Please don't do this, as mappers may have completely opposite ideas of what is ideal or scary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- 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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 3/5/2011 7:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38 based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with a more direct route taking the motorway_link Skelly Drive to get under I 44 at Darlington. Why is a frontage road tagged as motorway_link? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 3/5/2011 7:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Something that would be nice but isn't as critical is to pick up on bicycle=preferred/avoid cues for ways that have been observed by mappers to be ideal/scary to use by bicycle. Please don't do this, as mappers may have completely opposite ideas of what is ideal or scary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 03/04/2011 08:26 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 3/4/2011 9:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote: >> HI all, >> >> just a quick note - we've added bicycle and pedestrian routing options >> to the MapQuest Open sites >> >> more details here: >> http://blog.mapquest.com/2011/03/03/open-routing-options-expanded/ > > It likes to use sidewalks (footways) to avoid one-way restrictions (and > prefers major streets with bike lanes over minor streets without - > perhaps an option to prefer/avoid bike lanes?). I guess sidewalks should > be tagged bicycle=no in Orlando (since that's the legal status)? (Or is > bicycle=dismount more precise?) > http://open.mapquest.com/link/3-3nK1mlXk footway already implies bicycle=no, so this would be a bug in MapQuest. Explicitly tagging implications can't hurt, but it would be better for renderers to get accepted practice right out of the box. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 03/04/2011 08:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote: > knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will > find tags we've missed that should or could be used for > bike/pedestrian. If you feel its worth mentioning, please please please > provide some point of reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a > link to a route on the open mapquest site where it isnt going thru a > feature you think it should. Thanks. For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38 based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with a more direct route taking the motorway_link Skelly Drive to get under I 44 at Darlington. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 03/04/2011 08:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote: > knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will > find tags we've missed that should or could be used for > bike/pedestrian. If you feel its worth mentioning, please please please > provide some point of reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a > link to a route on the open mapquest site where it isnt going thru a > feature you think it should. Thanks. Another thing I just noticed...MapQuest is completely ignoring route=bicycle relations. Something that would be nice but isn't as critical is to pick up on bicycle=preferred/avoid cues for ways that have been observed by mappers to be ideal/scary to use by bicycle. I would also suggest providing more weight to residential roads over higher priority roads if they lack cycleway=* tags or bicycle=designated tags, since at least in the US, major arterials are often the least ideal route for a cyclist, particularly inexperienced, out of shape, or extremely young/old riders. It would be a selling point to shoot for the "8-88 with no special bicycle skills" demographic by default with the ability to change routing options based on strength (which already exists with the hill modes) or ability (ie, intermediate riders may get routed onto a secondary now and then and prefer residential to tertiary, and bump it one higher for strong riders, and include motorways and trunks where not tagged bicycle=no for die-hard utility cycling) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 03/04/2011 10:48 AM, Toby Murray wrote: > *Like* > > The bicycle router picks almost the exact route I take to work when I > tell it to avoid hills. I just noticed at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38 on the Riverbanks East Cycleway that bicycle directions advise you to take the wrong side of the median on a divided cycleway: This is obviously incorrect, oneway=yes tags always apply to bicycles unless oneway:bicycle=no is set. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 03/04/2011 08:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote: > knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will > find tags we've missed that should or could be used for > bike/pedestrian. If you feel its worth mentioning, please please please > provide some point of reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a > link to a route on the open mapquest site where it isnt going thru a > feature you think it should. Thanks. One thing I just noticed trying a route from Shadow Mountain, Tulsa, OK to the BOK Center, Tulsa, OK was the transit directions. How is Mapquest finding these on OSM data? Is it limited exclusively to rail services, or are bus routes included, too? How is schedule information discovered by this service? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 03/04/2011 08:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote: > HI all, > > just a quick note - we've added bicycle and pedestrian routing options > to the MapQuest Open sites Thank you! I know I suggested this, I don't know if I was the only one. > knowing the amazing diligence of this community, I'm sure you guys will > find tags we've missed that should or could be used for > bike/pedestrian. If you feel its worth mentioning, please please please > provide some point of reference so we can eyeball it - a wayID, or a > link to a route on the open mapquest site where it isnt going thru a > feature you think it should. Thanks. Will do! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Antony Pegg write: > > just a quick note - we've added bicycle and pedestrian routing options > > to the MapQuest Open sites > > This will no doubt provoke the usual tirade of "but but but but", so can I > just step in here and post an unqualified "awesome". :) > > cheers > Richard > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bike-Pedestrian-directions-on-the-MQ-Open-sites-tp6088561p6088668.html > Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > I second that sentiment. Great addition. Now to add more data for this. -- Dale Puch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
*Like* The bicycle router picks almost the exact route I take to work when I tell it to avoid hills. One thing I've noticed is that starting and ending positions are kind of weird when they involve a building polygon. I'm guessing buildings are reduced to a centroid point in the routing engine and it just selects the nearest way as the start/end point of the route. This leads to a slightly odd route sometimes. For example, zoom in on the north end of this route: http://open.mapquest.com/?le=t&hk=4-FQcACEdy&vs= Obviously the better starting location would be where the footway intersects the building outline on the south corner. That intersection node is even marked with building=entrance. Perhaps explicitly mapped entrances could be taken into account by the routing engine? Another route where this would help: http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Xhit54ly The route takes you right past a door on the south end of Anderson Hall in favor of the walkway end point that is closest to the building centroid. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
Antony Pegg write: > just a quick note - we've added bicycle and pedestrian routing options > to the MapQuest Open sites This will no doubt provoke the usual tirade of "but but but but", so can I just step in here and post an unqualified "awesome". :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bike-Pedestrian-directions-on-the-MQ-Open-sites-tp6088561p6088668.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 3/4/2011 9:04 AM, Antony Pegg wrote: HI all, just a quick note - we've added bicycle and pedestrian routing options to the MapQuest Open sites more details here: http://blog.mapquest.com/2011/03/03/open-routing-options-expanded/ It likes to use sidewalks (footways) to avoid one-way restrictions (and prefers major streets with bike lanes over minor streets without - perhaps an option to prefer/avoid bike lanes?). I guess sidewalks should be tagged bicycle=no in Orlando (since that's the legal status)? (Or is bicycle=dismount more precise?) http://open.mapquest.com/link/3-3nK1mlXk ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
