http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm
Thank you for the link.
Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and
not-segregated foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets
(highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no)
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oG6
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate
> sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there
> reasons to treat sidewalk differently ?
>
Yes, if it's separated by a curb or median from the rest of the street.
Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate
sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there
reasons to treat sidewalk differently ?
m
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> 2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
>>
>> So not all of
For years the danish community has generally been following this
recommendation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Cykelstivejledning on
when to use cycleway=track and when to use separate cycleways. I'd like to
express the opinion that cycleway=track is NOT bad and actually in many
situat
+1
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 7:39 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I fully agree on this. Please do not remove separate cycleways, unless they
> are wrongly mapped cycle lanes (an error which I encounter from time to time)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstree
>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm
Nice tool, thanks!
Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and not-segregated
foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets (highway=path,
foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no)
I am not an Overpass-Turbo expert and d
>
>
> Yes, there are arguments for both ways of mapping, but as long as we don't
> prefer one over the other, mappers will edit back and forth without much
> sense.
>
I just think it's too complicated an issue to just decide here and now. So
a good and neutral guideline is probably the first thin
2017-04-27 10:21 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
> There are very good arguments for both sides of this discussion.
I forgot another two pro distinct geometry:
4. consistency. There is a general rule that separate carriageways should
be mapped separately. Why would we do it everywhere but on cycle
There are very good arguments for both sides of this discussion. Is there a
wiki article where both views are really confronted with all the arguments?
(I've seen a long article about why you should use separate ways to make
wheelchair routing possible, but can't find it now. But I don't remember
s
2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
> So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.
I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the sepa
> On Apr 27, 2017 9:24 AM, "joost schouppe"
wrote:
> >
> > So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. So is there any
tool available to answer OP? Or do you have to write your own solution?
> > Since no-one said so yet, I suppose there isn't.
There is, the answer was given elsewhere:
So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. So is there any
tool available to answer OP? Or do you have to write your own solution?
Since no-one said so yet, I suppose there isn't. Here's a quick visual
check:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm
I think I found a nice example of a messed u
12 matches
Mail list logo
