On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Martin Vonwald
wrote:
> No. If - for example - you need to turn left on the next crossing and the
> adjacent cycleway is separated from the main road so that it is not
> possible to turn left from the cycleway, you are allowed to switch to the
> main road and driv
First of all my compliments for seeking the opinions of the tagging mailing
list and your effort to improve OSM.
Here are my 2 cents
1 Why does OSM need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle
ways?
As a cyclist myself I can see some reasons why it could be useful for
routers and/
, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional
cycletracks)
2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
"cycleway=track"
I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates
some sort of cycleway parallel to roa
2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> "cycleway=track"
>
> I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates
> some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details.
>
> In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road,
> width
"cycleway=track"
I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates
some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details.
In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road,
width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridicul
Am 22.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Ulrich Lamm:
> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and
> cycleway=optional.
I am still against this tag as I mentioned several times.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.o
As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is
cycleway=track.
Now we have two solutions:
1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track
2. add a new key like bicycle_track=*
My two cents
fly
Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert:
> The need to distinguish between o
, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional
cycletracks)
2014-12-22 14:50 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist from
certain roads! e.g.
I'
2014-12-22 14:50 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist
> from certain roads! e.g.
>
> I'm bicycling north to south.. there is an obligatory cycleway 1000 kms
> west of me ..
> Do I have to use it? No. Totally unreasonable.
on, 22 Dec 2014 12:53:53 +0100
>> From: Marc Gemis
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs.
>> optionalcycletracks)
>> Message-ID:
>>
On 22/12/2014 11:00 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:53:53 +0100
From: Marc Gemis
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs.
optionalcycletracks)
2014-12-22 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst :
> Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote:
> > Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > No, no, no.
> > In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least
> > one more: no. Well, make that two: No.
> ...there's no limit...
>
Oh my 1992... I'm ge
Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote:
> Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > No, no, no.
> In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least
> one more: no. Well, make that two: No.
...there's no limit...
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Featur
On 22/12/2014 9:09 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com>>:
No, no, no.
In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least
one more: no. Well, make that two: No.
Let me add several "no"s:
In France the situation exists. Two signs are designed for this (but
not well understood by people and even sometimes misused by
authorities):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Road_signs_in_France
Sign B22a (round, blue) = compulsory / mandatory / obligatory
Bicycles MUST use, bicycles not a
Hubert
From: Colin Smale [mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl]
Sent: Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 11:18
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional
cycletracks)
In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is
"verp
In Belgium the cyclist always have to use the cycleway, except
- the path is in bad condition (glass, snow, holes, ...)
- Children on small bikes
- groups of cyclists.
- for some special turns (see page 10 of
http://webshop.bivv.be/frontend/files/products/pdf/2fea42ac8b1b22e59ef8d5ea77aaf906/fiet
The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways is quite
common. Right now it's done by distinguishing between
bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=official and
bicycle=designated/yes.
In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like
bicycle=obligato
In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is
"verplicht fietspad" i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track
runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is
interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the
countryside with no adjac
In Sweden it also generally not allowed to cycle on the road if a cycleway
are present. There are some exeptions to this rule, but one cyclist
actually got judged recently for violating this law.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>what is the legal situation in d
Hi,
what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one
of a very small number of countries that has this concept of "if there
is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road", or
is this quite common?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote
2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com>>:
No, no, no.
In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least
one more: no. Well, make that two: No.
Let me add several "no"s:
No, no, no, no, NO!
Reasons have already been given.
___
Here's the link to the proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Proposed_features/Obligatory_vs._optional_cycletrack
2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> No, no, no.
>
In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least one
more: no. Well, make that two: N
No, no, no.
Cycleway key is already used for a different purpose! Cycleway=lane,
cycleway=opposite,
cycleway=shared_lane etc may be either obligatory or optional.
This proposal would mean that one may record either type of cycleway or its
legal implications but not both!
Also, link to a detailed
Hi all,
I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional.
Now I hope for your comments.
Ulrich
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
25 matches
Mail list logo
