+1
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Randy
> Sent: 28 October 2009 21:04
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
>
> I have run into several situat
Good advice ... +1!
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> Sent: 28 November 2009 19:43
> To: Steve Bennett
> Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org; tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs..
+1 for UK too.
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of John Smith
> Sent: 02 December 2009 21:47
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] bi
#x27; + 'foot=yes' it would be
reasonable to assume a default that the cyclist could wheel / carry the
bike.
I agree that horses are different - walking a horse is usually not allowed
where riding a horse is not allowed (for protection of the surface) and
carrying the horse is relatively unco
n significantly churn up a soft surface. Whereas wheeling (or carrying) a
bike is unlikely to significantly inconvenience pedestrians nor to do any
harm to the path.
2. Perhaps horse=no should mean that you cannot ride or lead a horse - but
you can carry it (like a bike)? (;>)
Mike Harris
>
+1
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave F.
> Sent: 07 December 2009 13:07
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
>
highway=path so far as possible and give preference to
highway=footway / cycleway / track etc. unless the path on the ground was an
ill-defined informal track with unknown (or no) legal status. This provides
more information.
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: taggin
the rest of the tagging.
This list and elsewhere there is of course an enormous ongoing debate on the
uses and misuses of highway=path vs. all the other values for highway= ...
But life is too short!
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [m
I wouldn't try to argue whether legal status is a more or less important
attribute than any other. However, where known, it is a useful piece of
information. In countries that do not have 'right to roam' and where it is
therefore illegal (at least a trespass) to walk on a path across private
land u
Almost every single one in England and Wales - clearly defined, in the public
domain and of great use to some of us to have the information in the database.
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetma
usage?
Mike Harris
_
From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
Sent: 08 December 2009 09:57
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
Are we edging towards:
bicycle=yes|no|pr
... On the last point - could we even deprecate designated= - I find it
confusing and redundant and always use designation = (see wiki pages) - but
maybe this is wrong?
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tag
the legal status (with acknowledgment to Richard Mann, who has usefully
just added the concept of 'local name' for the value of the tag to the concept
of using the 'designation' tag.
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
>
Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
> Sent: 08 December 2009 18:10
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Mik
nce my question ...
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Wallace
> Sent: 08 December 2009 21:55
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
>
> On W
... That seems entirely sane ... Imho the most important thing is to map
what's there on the ground ... If wonks like me want to add further
information that they happen have available then that's fine too - but we're
all volunteers!
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetm
... is this even correct? subtags off access=* or values for highway=* ?
_
From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
Sent: 09 December 2009 03:34
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicy
... not quite ... I now that page and have studied it well ... But try
comparing that page with some of the others I cited in my previous long
e-mail ... That's the dilemma that I don't think I'm alone in facing ...
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
&g
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Wallace
> Sent: 10 December 2009 05:50
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
&
_
From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of James Livingston
Sent: 10 December 2009 11:01
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On 09/12/2009, at 3:30 AM, Mike Harris wrote:
Personally
Thanks for the gentle reminder ... I did make a couple of small
contributions when it first appeared and had then been away in sunnier
climes and had forgotten about it ... Mea maxima culpa ... I'll put on my
thinking cap and revisit as and when time permits.
Mike Harris
> -
Roy Wallace says ...
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Wallace
> Sent: 11 December 2009 07:45
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: [Taggin
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
> Sent: 14 December 2009 09:15
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highwa
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
> Sent: 14 December 2009 09:18
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highwa
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Liz
> Sent: 14 December 2009 10:52
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highwa
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Pieren
> Sent: 14 December 2009 12:13
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highwa
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
> Sent: 14 December 2009 14:47
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highwa
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Craig Wallace
> Sent: 14 December 2009 18:39
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway w
Mike Harris didn't write that - though I did read it!
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Paul Johnson
> Sent: 17 December 2009 01:31
> To: tagging@openstreetm
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Greg Troxel
> Sent: 18 December 2009 13:48
> To: Paul Johnson
> Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org; tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re
ed in a different
country ... Do mailboxes there carry any reference that could be used
instead of an address. If the local system is to use a street address as the
official mailbox reference I could see a case for using this as ref=* for
the mailbox and leaving the address tag for the building.
Any help
Mike Harris
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Paul Johnson
> Sent: 20 December 2009 22:31
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Taggin
Mike Harris
_
From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
Sent: 21 December 2009 06:21
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways
Quesion is: is there
.. And,
as it is a default, public footpaths do not normally have any signage to
indicate 'no cycling' ... I'm not making any recommendation here about
tagging ... Just saying that geographical differences do exist and it may be
useful for any tagging system to allow for this ...
Mike
... I've refrained so far from getting into this burgeoning discussion thread
... just 2 humble pleas though:
1. It is different in different countries. In England there are cycleways ...
typically part of long-distance non-urban routes that have been created either
primarily for cyclists or a
g mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
Mike Harris
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
36 matches
Mail list logo
