Ed Loach wrote:
>where there is a verge so narrow you can step across it without stepping on
>the grass.
Unless you're with a walker, a pram or a stroller, or in a wheelchair.
> or put arbitrary joining ways at intervals.
Only useful where there's a real connection anyway, i.e. a route
starts f
Marc Gemis wrote:
> AFAIK the Fins are already adding all traffic signs, see [1]. The Dutch made
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Finland:Traffic_signs
In my experience collecting the signs exhaustively has revealed smaller and
bigger errors in osm data, and also in the signs (say, "leakin
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> the world is not black and white
This (or some other message) reminded of one other very accepted case
where the verifiability could be contested, but isn't. People do map
underground pipelines (water, drain, heat etc.), either interpolating
between manholes or markers
On Tue moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> If you go that route, there's no limit to how far back an old name can
> go. That'd mean that we should add, for example, all of [Dublin's old
> names][1] to the osm object, since they are well documented. It would
Reading any old document or fiction would benefit
Dave F. wrote:
> A 'life story' is historical. Historical doesn't mean 'gone'.
Then that data shouldn't be 'gone' but just with a different key/tag,
especially as long as the not-gone object exists.
--
alv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference?
>
> Historical data should not be added and if present - removed.
If anyone can add descriptive attributes of present features on
present-in-osm objects, they shouldn't be deleted. A tag saying
"this wa
(I hadn't subscribed to this list, so the reply is to a seemingly
random message and not directly related to that)
I believe much of this recent discussion is happening because
there's a ... misconception that hasn't been addressed, and
the actual tags that have been mentioned suggest readers to
b
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I think this has to be done, and it can be done. We could invent a way
to flag stuff that we remove because it ceased to exist as such, and
The solution that works right now, even if it is a bit laborous
sometimes: first prepend all keys with "was:" or "past:"
(for e
It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4
wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle
like a moped or a motorbike (or no
While that is often true, the criteria goes the other way:
- if the way is too narrow to fit a car (hey, my summer
car is only 1.48 m wide) or a t
Some places are mapped thoroughly enough that we're adding sidewalks,
and cycleways on the sidewalk (or Copenhagen style cycleways, as
they've been called on this list) as separate ways. Generally these
don't have a separate name. At least when the cycleway/footway
deviates away from the road, eve
Richard Mann wrote:
>then yes they probably will get converted into tags on the road, just as
>soon as that renders properly. Rendering gain trumps notional information
>loss. The Danes are just ahead of the curve.
I think they have been too eager to discourage drawing the cycleways
separately. Th
I think we've seen (several times) the different meanings given in
the wiki guidelines in different languages/ for different countries;
there's little to gain from discussing them over again _until_ someone
makes a proposal to clear the issue with well written explanations.
But I want to note
Lambert Carsten wrote:
>sense. Even though the smaller road ends at the edge of the larger road
>not the middle of the road.
Inside the crossing area the roads overlap, neither ends there - you're
on both roads. But you're not on the bridge that starts only several
meters away - or inches away if
Roy Wallace wrote:
>I have no idea what you would consider "suitable for the common
>cyclist". Please, at least write the criteria down.
Since it's the not signposted ways that are not evident and a common
cyclist is not looking for mountain bike trails, I'll try: shout if you
disagree.
Absolut
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
> This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the
> German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are
> having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk
> on foot, I need
> to know whether it is an unsig
Quote Key:highway:
"It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the importance
of the highway."
(Was until last week:)
" ... of the physical structure of the highway".
Either way, the highway tag itself should (IMO) convey they primary
description of the highway - the distinction bet
Shaun McDonald wrote:
>> As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
> Even so the on the ground rule and verifiability have not been on the wiki
> for long. They have been the unwritten norms of the community since the
I'm all for referring to that verifiability where it come
Roy Wallace wrote:
>Is tagging the "primary users intended to use the way" verifiable? If
>not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
introduced into the wiki only in 2009, while footway and cycleway have
been suc
Nop wrote:
>I think we should step back one step.
>The discussion here seems about to fall victim to the same mechanisms
Trying to keep my comment general at first to find what are the needs:
what should be in the highway tag and what are "local factors". This
turned into a stream of thoughts but
Radomir Cernoch wrote:
>> http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=60.18933&lon=24.9642&zoom=18
>I do not
>think that streets like Sturenkatu or Teollisuuskatu, nor any of
>connected primary/secondary/tertiary form a "zone". I would suggest to
>define a "zone" as an "area with predominantly uniform traffic
>r
=barangay ?
--
Lauri Kytömaa --- Leppäsuonkatu 7 A 32
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 00100 Helsinki
http://www.iki.fi/lkmaa/ - 040-7580434
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> Are paths larger than footways?
>> Is it for paths required that any other vehicle/horse can use the path
>> otherwise it is a footway?
>There is no defined physical difference between footway and path. The
>difference is that footways are primarily or exclusively for use by foot
>traffic, w
>So: Someone thought that dropping the well-established and well-working
>highway=footway was a good idea. He or she seems to have managed to
>convince people to actually *change* existing data to fit his new idea,
>without, obviously, spending a second thinking about the data consumers
>(i.e.
m to appear in correct
width. This might not be the case for very
narrow or wide streets, though.
--
Lauri Kytömaa --- Leppäsuonkatu 7 A 32
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 00100 Helsinki
http://www.iki.fi/lkmaa/ - 040-7580434
___
Hi,
The proposed feature for specifically acknowledgind a value of none
for the tag maxspeed has been in voting but has not been voted upon
15 times and is therefore re-introduced to this list.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/maxspeed_none
25 matches
Mail list logo
