Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

Am 11.09.2023 um 23:39 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick: Not arguing, but oneway:foot = 5024 foot:backward = 394 foot:forward = 300 Personally, I would interpret that as time that the wiki had a rewrite! :-) Voted by their "foot" ... ;-) - and I used it too ... But it is already rewritten: On

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

Not arguing, but oneway:foot = 5024 foot:backward = 394 foot:forward = 300 Personally, I would interpret that as time that the wiki had a rewrite! :-) Thanks Graeme On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 19:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > On 11 Sep 2023, at 08:39, Graeme

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

sent from a phone > On 11 Sep 2023, at 08:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > foot:oneway=yes / oneway:foot=yes? as „oneway“ is defined for vehicles only, „oneway:foot“ doesn’t make a lot of sense. The wiki suggests „foot:backward“ or „foot:forward“ as alternatives that follow the generic

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 16:22, Volker Schmidt wrote: > The problem is that we frequently have cycleways or food-cycle-ways that > are legally oneway for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. They are tagged > "oneway=yes". I agree we need a oneway tag for pedestrians, but it cannot > be a simple

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

The problem is that we frequently have cycleways or food-cycle-ways that are legally oneway for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. They are tagged "oneway=yes". I agree we need a oneway tag for pedestrians, but it cannot be a simple oneway=yes because that is already in use with a different

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

Sep 10, 2023, 23:37 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 01:25, Niels Elgaard Larsen <> elga...@agol.dk> > > wrote: > >> Volker Schmidt: >> > Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not >> for pedestrians. >> >> >> We do have a lot of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 01:25, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > Volker Schmidt: > > Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not > for pedestrians. > > > We do have a lot of highway=footway,oneway=yes > Also know of suspended Tree Walk walkways e.g.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

Volker Schmidt: Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not for pedestrians. We do have a lot of highway=footway,oneway=yes at museums, train stations, airports, zoos, etc. Which is useful for routers. The wiki does mention vehicles. It may not always be a very

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

On 9/9/23 17:31, Volker Schmidt wrote: Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not for pedestrians. Some pedestrian barriers are 'oneway' .. for example turnstiles at train stations where the turnstile only allows travel if a card/ticket is produced. I know of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not for pedestrians. On Sat, 9 Sep 2023, 07:05 Andrew Harvey, wrote: > I have previously proposed the tag path=mtb > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Tag:path%3Dmtb as a way to > say it's a purpose built mountain

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

I have previously proposed the tag path=mtb https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Tag:path%3Dmtb as a way to say it's a purpose built mountain biking track (which if it has features like jumps, skinnies, berms etc would make it such). Unfortunately the proposal could not gain a consistent

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

I don't know about the trail in question, but the one-way MTB trails near me are clearly signed one-way regardless of transit mode. I'm not sure offhand if foot traffic is actually banned or just a bad idea. I'd suggest that, unless a one-way MTB trail is clearly two-way for other transit modes,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023, 3:21 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > So, no signage? > Incline and mtb-scale still don't say you can't hike there. > If I understand the OP you can hike there. Someone would have to make a router that is smart enough to know that despite being legal, hiking on a downhill mtb

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

So, no signage? Incline and mtb-scale still don't say you can't hike there. Fr Gr. Peter Elderson Op vr 8 sep 2023 om 23:01 schreef Mike Thompson : > One of the trails was > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593945914#map=19/37.99250/-122.50667 > highway

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

One of the trails was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593945914#map=19/37.99250/-122.50667 highway path horse

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

How did you find out what these paths are? Any kind of signage there? Fr Gr Peter Elderson Op vr 8 sep 2023 om 19:08 schreef Bryce Nesbitt : > > I recently went on a hike, guided only by OSMAnd. We ended up planning a > route > that took us uphill on what turned out to be a long series of one

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

This is a frequent tagging problem. bicycle=* , oneway=* , and oneway/bicycle=* are tags describing the legal access status. So does highway=path (it implies, in many jurisdictions, foot=yes and bicycle=yes). There is a way to indicate a route is a MTB route, and also that such route is

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

The tagging looks right,  but until the renderers pick up the oneway tag it doesn't seem hopeful. Changing the name is not right, and bicycle=permissive is not right either.   foot=discouraged would make sense, maybe the apps will pick that up? On 9/8/23 11:02, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I

[Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

I recently went on a hike, guided only by OSMAnd. We ended up planning a route that took us uphill on what turned out to be a long series of one way downhill mountain bike flow tracks. I have no problem with the flow track: just had it been clearly delineated we would have planned a different