Hi,
What might be an unambiguous way to tell that some cycleway is NOT designated?
In theory if bicycle=designated means what it says then bicycle=yes might mean
that yes, it is a cycleway, but no, it is not a designated cycleway. However, I
feel that bicycle=yes means more often that nobody has
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jukka
Rahkonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What might be an unambiguous way to tell that some cycleway is NOT designated?
> In theory if bicycle=designated means what it says then bicycle=yes might mean
> that yes, it is a cycleway, but no, it is not a designated cycleway.
>
;t
broke don't fix it?
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 August 2009 23:15
To: Jukka Rahkonen
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Ju
2009/8/14 Mike Harris :
> The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which
> was developed after a lot of discussion in this group!
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
>
> If it ain't
> broke don't fix it?
IMHO it IS BROKEN. The cited page has
rg
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
2009/8/14 Mike Harris :
> The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated=
> which was developed after a lot of discussion in this group!
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:acce
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
> To me, cycleway means path, designated means signed, and bicycle=yes
> means it's suitable for bikes. So if you have a path that is suitable
> for a bicycle but does not have a sign with a bicycle, I would use
> highway=path (or cycleway, if y
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Mike Harris wrote:
>
> Tend to agree in part - I think the 'official' bit is actually redundant?
> Would this improve the page?
I'm not sure you'd be successful in removing 'official' altogether,
but I think it could do with some clarification, as Martin points o
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Mike Harris wrote:
> The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which
> was developed after a lot of discussion in this group!
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
>
> Designated= does not mean signed. Signed= coul
2009/8/15 Roy Wallace :
> Could the definition of "official" be simplified to "signed"?? If not,
> what would be the difference between bicycle=official and
> bicycle=signed?
As I have understood, official is intended to tag the formal
dedication (usually of the local administration who decided to
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/8/15 Roy Wallace :
>> Could the definition of "official" be simplified to "signed"?? If not,
>> what would be the difference between bicycle=official and
>> bicycle=signed?
>
> As I have understood, official is intended to tag the f
l/designated
overlap can be minimised?
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 August 2009 00:12
To: Mike Harris
Cc: Jukka Rahkonen; talk@openstreetmap.org; m...@koppenhoefer.com
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation
2009/8/15 Roy Wallace :
> The wiki says "'Official' is stronger than 'designated'...'Offical' is
> only for ways marked with a legal traffic sign".
the map-features main page states for access:
" * official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode of travel
by law. Usually indicated by a tra
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>> Bicycle=signed is IMHO not the best idea, because what do you do for
>>> official or designated _and_ signed ways?
>>
>> As I mentioned before, you would have to change the syntax to
>> something more like bicycle:designated=* and b
access=official is a proposal (and one that appears to be in abeyance)
It's basically trying to create another access= value to try to sort out
some of the mess with access=designated, but I fear it just adds further to
the confusion.
Richard
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
14 matches
Mail list logo
