I think that unless there is explicit signage forbidding bicycles, the ways
should be constructed to permit bicycles (particularly if usage of bicycles
on that path is common). In other words, use highway=path (always my
preferred), or if you must use highway=footway, add bicycle=yes.
Ian
Thanks for the tip about the "change" tag.
So here is what I've done - does it sound right?
- in the section where the slip lane joins the 2-lane through road (where
lanes=3), I have added: "change:lanes=not_right|not_left| "
(this hopefully means that the left hand lane cannot change
This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but
I'll start a new thread so as not to distract the original.
" 'Don't split ways if there is no physical separation' is one of the core
tenets of highway mapping in OSM."
My query is about how to correctly map an
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:32:26 +1100
> From: "Phil Wyatt"
> To: ,
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)
> Message-ID: <004d01d81ed6$7979f520$6c6ddf60$@wyatt-family.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Ian and Thorsten,
>
> I was also
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 01:11:54 +1000
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging
> Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
> Message-ID: <045901d81e90$8c77e060$a567a120$@thorsten.engler.id.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:26:38 +1100
From: "Phil Wyatt" mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >
To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)
Message-ID: <007601d81e0c$7f095af0$7d1c10d0$@wyatt-family.com
>> I think the AWTGS is a reasonable starting point for a trail/track
difficulty scale that's relevant to Australia.
>> However, I wasn't clear whether Grade 5 was supposed to cover everything
above Grade 4, or whether there were things harder than Grade 5.
>> If the former, I'd think there
If we agree that the Australian Walking Track Grading System is worth
tagging, the next question is how to tag it?
The couple I have tagged, I just did "awtgs="
I heard back from the German guy who deleted my tags (he was apologetic) and
he said he thought it was a simple misspelling of a tag
I strongly prefer highway=path over highway=footway.
Most "paths" that get tagged as footways are not signed to say that bicycles
are NOT permitted - hence bicycles ARE permitted. Hence, if a path is
tagged as a footway, you then need to go and add a 2nd tag "bicycle=yes" -
otherwise routers
I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading
System. It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire
Management -
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/austr
alian-walking-track-grading-system). The AWTGS defines 5 track
Personally, I'm not too fussed about mapping to suit trail bikes in the bush
- they go anywhere they feel like anyway :-) The main advantage of mapping
it as a path is that 4WDs won't get routed down them.
However, while the OSM definition for path does include the words " and not
intended for
I've always mapped a track that's not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path.
Ian
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100
From: "EON4wd" mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> >
To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in
Nerang
I'm unsure in how to apply the AWTGS to walking/hiking paths.
I followed through a very long OSM discussion thread from 2020, but didn't
see any resolution(I don't think the discussion was Australian specific)
What are others doing ?
Ian
___
I also agree with the Telenav approach for the WA intersection (the other is
unnecessarily complicated).
Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
As much as it irks me to have Americanisms creep into our language (and it irks
me a great deal!), I agree with you - sidewalk is more definitive.
--
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:57:05 +1000
From: Andrew Harvey
To:
Thanks to Phil & Marc (whose replies are below). I finally got back to having
a look at this after gathering some more data of lanes to be mapped.
The "overtaking" key seems only applicable to 2 lane roads (one each direction)
- is that correct ?
The "change" key looks very promising, but the
--
>>
> I have been “guilty” of adding small fords and culverts on bush tracks
> because JOSM gives me an error message if you have a waterway crossing a way
> without some sort of bridge, Ford, etc - and I try to avoid doing
Can someone point me to some examples of the correct method of mapping
overtaking lanes on country highways?
I need examples for where it is both permissible and not permissible for the
contrary direction to use the overtaking lane.
Thanks
Ian
18 matches
Mail list logo