Hi Volker,
the values raised and lowered for a kerb (node) are related to the
vertical gap between sidewalk/crossing and not really to the direction.
Raised means that there is a (more or less) big transition (in the kerb
page [1] it says >3 cm), while lowered means a smaller transition, and
Most locals on the Kokoda Trail have no footware, that goes better in
mud and river crossings.
All tourists ware footwear and think/know that this is a hiking route.
To give an idea of 'hardness' there is one part where most are on hands
and knees.
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jan 2020, at 23:05, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
>>> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
>>> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
> You replied
>> first 11 results seemed all perfectly ok to get there :)
>
> But you missed the point. If
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging
wrote:
> On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
> > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
> > is, highway=footway. If that's correct,
I opened an issue at the Taginfo repository requesting that relations
be included on the map, or the title of the map changed to
"Geographical distribution of ways and nodes with this tag" -
https://github.com/taginfo/taginfo/issues/274;
On 1/12/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arr ..
Arr .. thanks.. found one 'near' to me.
After more info from a user, if they respond, see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78020394
Arr On 12/1/20 1:45 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
The taginfo map is misleading, because it doesn't show the location of
relations, and almost all
Great story Kevin. I hope they learned something from their
experience. +1 on the boots, things change, back in the old days
when I could still backpack it was pretty much a given that you should
have sturdy boots. Now most of the long distance hikers, like you,
have gotten wiser and
12 Jan 2020, 00:28 by ja...@piorkowski.ca:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
>> :
>>
>>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>>> one-way for pedestrians would be on
>> oneway=yes can be interpreted as referring to pedestrians on footways (it
>> looks like osm-carto already does this?
The Openstreetmap-carto style shows one-way arrows on highway=footway
and highway=path because these features can also be used by bicycles
in many places.
- Joseph Eisenberg
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
> :
>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
>> is, highway=footway. If that's
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
as referring to pedestrians on footways (it
> I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all for
> it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and manageable.
+1
I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out
Martin,
I wrote
> Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
>> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
>> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
>>
> You replied
> first 11 results seemed all perfectly ok to get there :)
>
But you missed the point.
Peter Elderson :
> Florimond Berthoux :
>
>> So I propose to use for bicycle route
>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>>
>>
> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
> city
Florimond Berthoux :
> So I propose to use for bicycle route
> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>
>
I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
city bikes with a few extra gears and
Le 11.01.20 à 21:05, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> What do you think ?
avoid the word "type" in a key as it as no additional meaning.
type can be everything (type of operator, difficulty, use, length, ...)
___
Tagging mailing list
I found that this problem has a solution for relation route=piste (snow
sports) with the key piste:type=*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:piste:type
Three of you have proposed to use like for piste relation a single new key
to precise the subtype of the a route
Joost Schouppe with:
Ok let's look at Berlin. I see bicycle routes in and around Berlin:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=6162=12.597273579561199!52.5315!13.4447
Are those routes touristic or commuter routes? How can you tell? I assume these
have been mapped because they are waymarked/signposted. Or are
I would like to return to the initial question of this thread, and looking
at it from the end users point of view.
When in a car, I use my navigation device in real time to get as
comfortably as possible from A to B to C and so on.
I may select to avoid motorways, and may give preference to minor
Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <
ja...@piorkowski.ca>:
> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
>
Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 12:35 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :
> Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
>
>
first 11 results seemed all perfectly ok to get there :)
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:48, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging
>> > wrote:
>> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
>> >
>> > That tag on footways would apply only to
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple
> tags with similar meanings.
>
> But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually
> used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning.
To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple
tags with similar meanings.
But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually
used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning.
On 1/11/20, Peter Elderson wrote:
> +1
> If don't see this as a
The taginfo map is misleading, because it doesn't show the location of
relations, and almost all route=power features are relations with
type=route. Try overpass-turbo instead, for example in Italy:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PF9
On 1/11/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/1/20 4:19
+1
If don't see this as a problem. If more clarity is needed, add tags for
specific aspects. E.g "vigour" scale if one exists. Boot type recommendation
scale, where 1=flipflop and 10=hoverboots.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 14:59 heeft Joseph Eisenberg
> het volgende geschreven:
If I remember well, there is also route=walking...
You are right that it doesn't make very much sense to make the distinction.
But now to get all mappers to choose for either hiking or foot will prove
to be an impossible task. As usual it will be status quo that wins, like
you saw in the result
Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on
wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes"
which led to a new template
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations
- used on route=hiking and route=foot
Conclusion.
SWe need a more flexible solution.
An idea.
For normal simple cases (small building, one address, placed on the map
close and unambigously near the Street of the address), put the number on
the building or on a node on the building polygon.
For more complex cases (anything from the
Le 11.01.20 à 06:21, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> The tag route=inline_skates
> Are there actually signed, verifiable inline skate routes?
yes
> Should a rare tag like this be in Map Features?
listing all the rare cases on maps feature is like turning it into
a wiki search engine or a taginfo
Sorry, my mail program got impatient and sent off an incomplete message.
Here is the continuation:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:31, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
> You get some ten results most of
Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
Then try to find "Bergamo Orio al Serio Airport" and check the address.
It's the one above.
Than try to route to the Airport, say
While the number is "low" some of them are quite long
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/InlineNetwork
Simon
Am 11.01.2020 um 06:21 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> The tag route=inline_skates was added to Map features, but it has
> only been added a few times in the past 4 years.
>
>
I do have a related question, regarding the kerb values lowered|raised on a
node.
Assume you find yourself on a pedestrian crossing across a road that has an
adjacent sidewalk and cycleway on the same side.
The main carriageway is separated from the (foot-only) sidewalk by a kerb
and that is
The problem with oneway=yes|no, if it were to apply to pedestrians as well,
would be on all mixed-use ways.
This would exclude highway=pedestrian as this tag excludes all vehicles by
definition (careful if it's an "area pedonale" in Italy, which allows
bicycles by default and hence requires a
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jan 2020, at 08:07, Jake Edmonds via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average
> consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b) doesn’t want to put the
> item into landfill?
first of all it is
sent from a phone
> On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
>
> That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.
well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only
apply to bicycles?
sent from a phone
> On 11. Jan 2020, at 06:23, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> Are there actually signed, verifiable inline skate routes?
yes
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 14:21:50 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Similar questions about route=running - are there real, signed running
> routes which are separate from walking or hiking routes?
Yes, in Belgium, there are quite a lot of these (over 100
39 matches
Mail list logo
