Hi,
Is there a POI for boards that are usually at the entrance of residential
localities showing the streets/names and plot numbers - like you-are-here
ones?
(a POI on a map showing where the map is :p)
Could not locate it in the wiki.
Thanks,
Vikas
___
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that!
>
> I like highway=path.
With surface=grass, of course!
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.or
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag
> an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would
> help routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, that
> doesn't make it a chair; 2) Just because you wa
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> An area of grass is - to me - not a path.
>
> Never? Or just not generally?
I'll rephrase. The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag
an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would
help routing. Analogy: 1) J
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an
>> area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a
>> "path" which is part of "reality"?
>
> An
On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote:
> 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions
> is here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers are doing
something wit
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Nop wrote:
>
>> So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
>> opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
>> from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
>> ever read). You must write it down
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an
> area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a
> "path" which is part of "reality"?
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is somet
Hi!
Roy Wallace schrieb:
> The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes
> confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your
> own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on
> to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good out
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I have a couple of thoughts:
>
> 1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
> where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
> trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
> but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the
> failure of the committee process
> the minority report cannot
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the
failure of the committee process
the minority report cannot be distinguished from the majority report
so a newb
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's diary entry last week (http://j.mp/8ESP8o)
> stired my interest. Using a few examples, he showed how mapping
> everything as an area - or as a volume - makes ultimate sense. Should we
> go for it now ?
Ævar's ex
I have a couple of thoughts:
1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)
2) Re
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Richard Bullock wrote:
>
> There's nothing stopping anyone mapping highways as areas.
>
> However, it could be a long time until routers and renderers catch up; the
> majority of the world wouldn't be able to position the areas accurately
> enough to make this wort
On Saturday 28 November 2009 14:37:12 Steve Bennett wrote:
> Next question: how popular is this viewpoint? Is this a minority way
> of thinking?
It was the only viewpoint before highway=path was "invented". Now it is one of
several competing viewpoints without a clear winner.
--
m.v.g.,
Cartinu
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Ok, since I'm new here,
You're new here? Welcome to OSM.
> I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter
> whether this stuff is done the same across different countries? Is it
> not ok if "cycleway" has slightly different semantics in dif
Underwater bicycling, the next Olympic sport...
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
>From :stevag...@gmail.com
Date :Sat Nov 28 08:24:57 America/Chicago 2009
(Australian bias showing, I'm unable to conceive of the idea of
cycling from one count
The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest drawbacks of OSM.
Here's my approach:
- A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which was mostly
built by an authority. You can walk on it safely in high heels.
- A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was not
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Maybe I missed the crucial bit, but presumably any area=yes highway
> has an implicit line running down the middle of it. The renderer would
> use that line at lower zoom levels exactly as it uses any other line.
That kind of destroys the wh
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Ben Laenen wrote:
> And at one time it was that easy in OSM, but the real world really isn't. In
> some countries it may work fine, but in other countries the distinction
> between the three has no connection with the actual situation and would
> introduce a number
On 28/11/2009 14:01, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> So, ground level is level 0? I had wondered about that, as the
> scanty documentation that I have seen didn't make that point clear.
well, it is the *default* level and the levels are relative. As with all
things OSM, as there is no rigid spec, whet
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst
>
> wrote:
> > highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use
> > highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
> > highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]
>
> Boy, I
So, ground level is level 0? I had wondered about that, as the scanty
documentation that I have seen didn't make that point clear.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-
I am in the process of learning how to use JOSM to transform a GPS trace into a
way, and have a question about how to mark a footpath that passes under a
highway bridge. As I understand the conventions, placing a node at this
crossing point would imply that they connect to each other, which is
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Richard Bullock wrote:
> In summary, I have no problem with people mapping everything as areas;
> however, I believe for the moment we will have to use both areas and ways.
If you're going to use an area and a way, don't tag them both with highway=*.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Richard Bullock wrote:
> For renderers:
>
> * nearly all maps exaggerate road width except when really zoomed in. A
> 30-35 metre wide motorway would appear almost insignificant at z levels less
> than 10 or 12 - but this is precisely the opposite of what we'd
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
> highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use
> highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
> highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]
Boy, I like this way of thinking. Of course,
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely
> nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to
> cycling over walking. Conundrum.
highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's
intended for pedestrian and cyc
Thanks all, these are very good replies. I'll have to ponder for a
bit. One complication that I should perhaps have mentioned is at the
moment I'm doing a lot of the mapping based on NearMap aerial maps, so
I can't actually observe local practice to see what's going on. Which
is why I'm inferring a
> I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
> area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
> and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch
> describes "path" as "unofficial path" - making it sound like an
> unpaved line of footprint
Steve
This is a big topic that has been very extensively discussed in this group
(and elsewhere). There is quite a range of opinion and, perhaps inevitably,
to some extent the opinions reflect (a) whether mappers see themselves
primarily as walkers, cyclists or ... mappers! and (b) the geographica
highway=path
foot=yes
bicycle=no
mtb=yes
highway=footway implies foot=designated and highway=cycleway implies
bicycle=designated.
foot=yes means you can walk there while designated means it's the
primary choise of route for pedestrians.
See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
Hello people,
I would've sent this to osmosis-talk@, but we only have osmosis-dev@ there
:) -- sorry if this might be slightly OT here.
I'm trying to create small dumps following some administrative borders. For
example, starting from the Italy planet, I'd like to create dumps of regions
and pr
>> Using areas seems like a lot of work for no benefit if you just need a
>> simple 2 lane road that has no foot paths or other interesting
>> features.
>
> Are you saying that you wouldn't find mapping areas satisfying? If so,
> that's fine - you don't have to.
>
> But for people who want to do it
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/11/28 Konrad Skeri :
> > They could be put as fee=prepaid/metered/unmetered
> > Perhaps not optimal, but not entierly wrong.
>
> metering=prepaid/metered/unmetered
>
??
charging=prepaid/metered/unmetered
2009/11/28 Konrad Skeri :
> They could be put as fee=prepaid/metered/unmetered
> Perhaps not optimal, but not entierly wrong.
metering=prepaid/metered/unmetered
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Le samedi 28 novembre 2009, Steve Bennett a écrit :
> 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were
> probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too.
> Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them "highway=path,
> bicycle=yes" (to be safe).
If you use
Hi all,
(Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my head around
them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, please point me at
it)...
I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
and when
39 matches
Mail list logo
