2010/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Just a thought - I haven't thought this through - could relation be used to
form a close relationship between a road and a track?
Sorry if this has been mentioned before.
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations#Proposed_uses_of_Relations
2010/1/4 Lauri Kytömaa lkyto...@cc.hut.fi
The national officials here are allegedly constructing a
database for a online routing service for cycling and they have concluded
that the information can not be described with sufficient detail for
very accurate routing as tags on the roads.
Just a thought - I haven't thought this through - could relation be used to
form a close relationship between a road and a track? Create a highway,
create a track, then link both with a relation. You could even have a role
for the track like left_cycleway or something. An approach like this might
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Claus Hindsgaul
claus.hindsg...@gmail.com mailto:claus.hindsg...@gmail.com wrote:
Just rewind a bit; in the start of this thread, I cited a guideline
developed on talk-dk to aid the choice between separate and tagged
Drawing separate ways for cycleways/footways alongside roads is nice and
simple. Doing it with tags on a single way is about 5 times more complex to
tag, but tolerable, and potentially a lot easier to render well. Doing it
with areas is maybe 100 times more complex to tag, and cannot replace the
Richard Mann wrote:
Drawing separate ways for cycleways/footways alongside roads is nice and
simple. Doing it with tags on a single way is about 5 times more complex
to tag, but tolerable, and potentially a lot easier to render well.
Doing it with areas is maybe 100 times more complex to
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Perhaps we do need to fork the project and create openmap.org so we can
get away from a fundamental belief that 'the road rules'? But all I am
'shouting for' is that there are hooks to maintain a hierarchy of detail as
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. The
2010/1/4 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
provide directions. In my one simple local case such directions as 'cross
road
and continue on the other side' are needed for pedestrian routing, but not
vehicle.
+1
On a busy London road, where railings and pedestrian/cycle crossings
are
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Perhaps we do need to fork the project and create openmap.org so we can
get away from a fundamental belief that 'the road rules'?
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/2 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are mapped - or
prevent
adding the REAL fine detail of ways that do not actually physically form
part of
the
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/2 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk
Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are
mapped
2010/1/3 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
It is however a very good example of where people have taken the trouble to
ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed! At the end of
the
day everything needs to be mapped fully, and there is no case for REMOVING
tracks that are
Claus Hindsgaul wrote:
2010/1/3 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk
It is however a very good example of where people have taken the
trouble to
ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed! At the
end of the
day everything needs
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
It is however a very good example of where people have taken the trouble to
ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed!
I agree with your point, but that's a bit of hyperbole there. The data is
still
2010/1/3 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
In large areas of the world, the macro level of mapping is now 'complete',
and
people are adding fine detail like 'post boxes', parking bays, drive ways
and
the like.
That is really great, but these large areas still cover a small proportion
of
2010/1/3 Claus Hindsgaul claus.hindsg...@gmail.com
-- Now back to the thread topic, bicycles :-) --
My conlusion: in the existing OSM environment, metatagging (one way with
tags for bicycle tracks, sidewalks etc.) of streets should be preferred for
fragmentation into separate micromapped
2010/1/4 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
what does this conclusion imply? Does it mean if you encounter a separately
mapped cycleway and there is not (yet?) enough significant different tags
for the cycleway and the street nearby (say name, ref, maxspeed, width,
surface, lanes are
2010/1/2 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are mapped - or
prevent
adding the REAL fine detail of ways that do not actually physically form
part of
the 'accompanying' road. This sort of 'shorthand' should not replace
mapping the
real
Steve
NOTHING should dictate that removing physical data is the 'correct'
way of mapping!
That's rather an extreme point of view. No professionally produced maps
contain everything. Nor do the databases from which they are derived.
Everything is not achievable, so let's not aim
Claus Hindsgaul wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you want to impose a regime,
where tags can be altered or (in the case of cycleways) can be converted
to separate ways - but that it is NEVER an improvement to delete a
separate way (physical data) and replace it by
2010/1/2 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are mapped - or
prevent
adding the REAL fine detail of ways that do not actually physically form
part of
the 'accompanying' road. This sort of 'shorthand' should not replace
mapping the
real
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk wrote:
* But it is documented in
** http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway since a while and is
** about 100 times in osmdoc. The problem with cycleway=lane is that the
**
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Claus Hindsgaul
claus.hindsg...@gmail.comwrote:
The outcome of the discussion was by default to represent bicycle
tracks/lanes with cycleway=track/lane tags in the accompagning road
instead of separate cycleway=highway. The following expressed exceptions
were
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Claus Hindsgaul
claus.hindsg...@gmail.com mailto:claus.hindsg...@gmail.com wrote:
The outcome of the discussion was by default to represent bicycle
tracks/lanes with cycleway=track/lane tags in the accompanying
road instead
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Not sure why you're using highway=unclassified - you know
unclassified' is a particular type of road, right? Whereas cycleways can
occur on almost any kind of road. So you probably should write something
like
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
But it is documented in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway since a while and is
about 100 times in osmdoc. The problem with cycleway=lane is that the
wiki never says clearly if it is for both sides and both
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I think cycleway=lane clearly implies that there are lanes on both sides,
hence why replacing that with cycleway:left= is bad. If there is only one
lane, then fair enough to not use cycleway=lane.
Then for the case M1,
Could some cycleway experimented mappers check and complete this wiki
page that I enhanced with new pictures and examples :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_amenagements
I tried to summarize the tagging based on that page and others (e.g.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Could some cycleway experimented mappers check and complete this wiki
page that I enhanced with new pictures and examples :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_amenagements
The structure looks really good.
A few
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Could some cycleway experimented mappers check and complete this wiki
page that I enhanced with new pictures and examples :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Pieren
I like the page
but what is amenagements?
It translates roughly to amenities but that's not necessarily the best
English word
Features
Steve
___
talk mailing list
32 matches
Mail list logo
