I would re-iterate Martin's assertion.
In Norway, we tag bicycle=designated/foot=designated when there is a
traffic sign for cycleway/footway/combined. Implicit in this logic is
that the consequence of the traffic sign is a different legal status
compared to an unsigned road. A route sign is
1) true, but wouldn't that by default be all steps unless otherwise
noted? I guess in this case it's assumed that the steps inherit their
implicit access from bridleway, so that might be different from the
general case...?
2) a noble cause, but again I would think that excluding bicycle=no from
Generally speaking, how do we reconcile these two?
bicycle=yes
highway=steps
What is a data consumer supposed to infer from this as opposed to just
highway=steps? As long as foot=designated, aren't cyclists always
allowed to get off the bike and push/carry it? And wouldn't they have to
when
Hi everyone.
There’s an on-going discussion in the Norway category on how to tag car
barriers. We request your input on the subject. A detailed explanation
of the issue and the discussion so far is here:
On 16.08.2023 06:33, Kashish via Tagging wrote:
1. width:start=*/width:end=*, optionally with width=* for the minimum width of
the street, and with a word of warning about the results of editors splitting
ways.
Would you require in these cases that the road width is changing exactly
On 16.04.2023 21:40, stevea wrote:
Isn't it a general assumption for everything that the owner is the operator by default?
I'm not saying "isn't it always true", but isn't that generally the assumption
if no other information is presented?
An obviously dangerous slope to slip down here and
On 16.04.2023 16:55, Greg Troxel wrote:
If we look at this from a data perspective, the most important
information for us to capture /today/ is which public entity type owns
the road and put this in the ownership tag. The specific entity can be
derived geographically with probably 100%
On 14.04.2023 10:13, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Ownership is not relevant if you think in terms of fixmystreet..
Just two extreme examples.
* The Italian Motorway network is owned by the Italian via a
state-majority public company, and operated by several different
private or state-owned
On 14.04.2023 09:13, Peter Neale wrote:
Well, to me, "type of ownership" suggests values such as "freehold";
"leasehold"; "rented", which I _don't_ think is what is intended.
I agree that "type of" is ambiguous, but the same applies to
"ownership". Neither is fully understood by just
On 14.04.2023 00:30, stevea wrote:
A search might be able to discern "in which" jurisdiction(s) a road is
found, much like a geocoder works with a minimal amount of data
"scattered around" (geographically) enough to determine "close enough
to a node to be associated with it" (as a place, for
in the future again diverges from the
owner (like with the county roads), we can put that in operator.
Sound good?
Jens
On 13.04.2023 12:42, Greg Troxel wrote:
Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging writes:
That does seem to capture it when used on roads. I see it's mostly
used for private roads
roads are maintained by the provincial engineering offices.
If responsibility areas of public works offices are identical to
administrative boundaries then a combination of designation tagging
and spatial queries could be used to locate the authority in charge.
On 2023-04-13 15:34, Jens Glad B
at 08:58 +0200, Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging wrote:
The status quo for "car" roads in Norway seems to be that state roads
are highway=motorway or highway=trunk, county roads are
highway=primary
or highway=secondary, and municipal roads are highway=tertiary and so
on.
For cycleways and foot
, Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging
wrote:
I couldn't find an official way to capture this information in OSM.
Is there one?
you could use the operator tag (although it doesn’t relate to ownership, it is
about the entity in charge of maintenance, and there could be several different
entities
Hi.
In Norway, roads are owned by the state, a county, a municipality, or a
private entity. Ownership of the road implies general responsibility for
maintenance and authority over signage and usage. I assume most
countries divide road ownership and authority in a similar way.
As an example
On 19.12.2022 21:21, Asa Hundert wrote
I can conceive of a case, where even without a sign changing the
software would be wrong: A motorway tunnel. They have sidewalks, to
escape in case of accidents. And guess what, foot=no applies to the
sidewalk!
How can they be sidewalks if they are not
The way cited here is a highway=footway, and my dataset only includes
the roadways themselves, not footway/cycleway, etc, by design and intent.
In that case, there is an adjacent highway=trunk road
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68648993) which is tagged foot=no,
with no sidewalk
It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, &
draw a separate footway, which would fix everything!
There are separately drawn footways in his Texan cases, just as you
could hopefully expect from sidewalk=separate.
On 18.12.2022 23:11, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually
answers the question I posed
Seems to me, in the situation described, and with the tagging instances
in Texas I could find, the tagging is accurate, in that it shows:
On 18.12.2022 21:38, cyton_...@web.de wrote:
And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or other.
Why differentiate?
Jens___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 03.12.2022 11:49, Alex wrote:
_Mainly_, I have concerns about the concept of a cycle path or foot
path being attendant to or a sidepath of another road.
In Norway, we no longer have cycle paths and foot paths. We have
cycleways, footways and carriageways. It may seem like a small
On 02.12.2022 13:31, Alex wrote:
Paths and ways along a road can be mapped separately in OSM, but those
separate geometries cannot be identified as part of the road, or only
with the significant effort of using geometric processing (which most
applications can't perform).
I strongly agree
Norwegian addresses do not use city or town as a term.
Cities and towns are historical terminology in common usage when
referring to large and small settlements, and they used to carry
official designation and significance (mostly related to trading
rights), but they are not used officially
23 matches
Mail list logo
