November 2009 21:10
To: Anthony
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; m...@koppenhoefer.com
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within
the right of
way as a polygon
@openstreetmap.org; m...@koppenhoefer.com
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Roy Wallace
waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is - in
rural England at least ... See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow
meadow is a statement of what grows there
landuse could be grazing or recreation or hay production
December 2009 09:01
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe
that it is
- in rural England at least ... See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow
2009/12/1 Liz ed...@billiau.net
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is -
in
rural England at least ... See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow
meadow is a statement of what grows there
landuse could be grazing or
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/1 Liz ed...@billiau.net
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is -
in
rural England at least ... See
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Yes, because there are two solutions to that problem.
1) Add an extra tag in that single country that differs from the rest of
the
world. But don't bother all the other mappers.
IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole
planet.
The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or
that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do.
+1
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.
+1
Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are,
so that
] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
consistency within each country?
I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.
It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.
+1
I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
maintain - and
I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch
describes path as unofficial path - making it sound like an
unpaved line of footprints carved
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
wrote:
Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path,
use highway=cycleway/bicycle=designated (optional). If you're not
sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.
The crux of the matter is that this is not what the wiki says, and not what
at
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
you say foot=no
The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
cycleways and bridleways
And we have
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a
bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.
+1
I see
I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
the default.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann
Steve Bennett wrote:
[...] I tend to
believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
sign saying otherwise.
That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we need
to provide people with as much information as possible so they can make
their own, possibly
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
the default.
not at all
we can have a cycleway
und einen Fahrradweg
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use
cycleway=opposite where appropriate.
1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki
carries more weight as it is the outcome of
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I wish we could codify these general assumptions. Because they won't be
universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.
I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
Besides being highly
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Bennett
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
[...] I tend to
believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
sign saying otherwise.
That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
the default.
Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
foot=yes/no??
I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks
2009/11/29 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an
area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a
path which is part of reality?
An
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful
database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with
their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly
2009/11/30 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.
The crux of
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
foot=yes/no??
I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
-1, a path is either
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.comwrote:
I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.
Yep. Even if some of
2009/11/30 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
usually you can *see*
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
soon)
2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software
if I
2009/11/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.comwrote:
I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
things*, it might help us find a way
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz wrote:
we can have a cycleway
und einen Fahrradweg
Yep. And cycleway ~= Fahrradweg.
Steve
There are umpteen ways of resolving it. The problem is that we don't have a
process for agreeing which. I wouldn't go
2009/11/30 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg
But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
there is a path.
+1, I completely agree with you. Only
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
soon)
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries?
What do you think? Work with me, here.
In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent
infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
pedestrian mall.
I'm kind
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent
infinite
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
that exists independently of people walking or not
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent
infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
pedestrian mall.
Not bad.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries?
What do you think? Work with me, here.
I think that would be a nightmare, and
On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
global consistency, and that that's important;
2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding
Roy Wallace wrote:
Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems
obvious.
Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
global consistency, and that that's important;
2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
global consistency, and that that's important;
2) people
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Roy Wallace wrote:
Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems
obvious.
Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
1) I can convince you guys
Roy Wallace wrote:
The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
*require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
consistent for the whole world. For example, this path is marked with
a sign with a
Various comments:
I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway,
but
got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.
The Hume *Freeway* is definitely a motorway. There are places between
Melbourne and Sydney where it's just a highway, but it's dual
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Roy Wallace wrote:
The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
*require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
consistent
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway,
but
got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.
The Hume Freeway is definitely a motorway. There are places between
Melbourne and Sydney where it's just a
2009/12/1 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de
Roy Wallace wrote:
The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
*require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
highway=cycleway means.
+1. even if for implicit regulations this would be needed, at least the
2009/12/1 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
I've referred to Jurisdictions a few times for this reason. I imagine US
states are possibly even more individual. Would we go as far as
councils/municipalities? Probably not. (Although, as I mentioned somewhere
earlier, the City of Melbourne
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent
infinite
2009/12/1 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
One meaning per tag is essential.
it depends what this meaning is. If you intend by meaning: cycleway is a way
with a bicycle-sign: fine, if you intent that all access rights should be
implicitly and globally given: no.
If a German cycleway is
2009/12/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org
I'd say this strip of land qualifies by that definition. Length,
about 80 meters. Width: about 10-15 meters. Used quite often for
pedestrian travel (it's the way you get to the park, plus school
children regularly walk across it on their way to/from
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
mapping what's on the ground.
You can
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
If a German cycleway is *different*
in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.
what's the difference? Minimum width differs 5 cm?
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries?
What
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I vote for once for each jurisdiction. But I vote strongly against
doing so using a wiki.
Not quite sure what you're voting against. I would suggest using the wiki to
collect and organise information on jurisdictional varations,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely
nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to
cycling over walking. Conundrum.
highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's
Hi!
Cartinus schrieb:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote:
2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions
is here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers
-Original Message-
From: Lesi [mailto:l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net]
Sent: 28 November 2009 14:29
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest
drawbacks of OSM.
Here's my approach
1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)
IMHO accessible paths *must*
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace
waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag an area of
grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would help
routing. Analogy: 1
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see
previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).
I was just proposing a compromise. I don't care what the tags are so
long as
On Sunday 29 November 2009 09:31:27 Nop wrote:
It is an attempt. If you find something missing or have another
suggestion for a solution, why don't you add it?
Because I am not allowed to.
The page starts with stating that if you don't agree with the problem, then
you are not allowed to
On Sunday 29 November 2009 19:37:08 Nop wrote:
Hi!
Cartinus schrieb:
I am of the opinion that the old fuzzy definitions weren't a problem at
all and the path tag should only be used for things that really don't fit
in them. (Like the snowmobile trail.)
I guess you are right. Adding a
Hi!
Cartinus schrieb:
If you negate the existence of a problem that has been widely confirmed,
you're not likely to contribute to a solution.
Except that I am far from alone with my opinion. See e.g. Richards
explanation
somewhere at the start of this thread and the widespread
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
EVERY contradictory interpretation has a substantial number of followers
- that IS the problem. Richards view works only in the UK and fails
terribly in Germany and other countries. But sorry, I really am fed up
with the pointless
On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
consistency within each country?
I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.
It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably the
only
Cartinus wrote:
It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably
the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.
Indeed.
The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the middle
(that separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have been done with
On Sunday 29 November 2009 22:53:58 Nop wrote:
Richards view works only in the UK and fails
terribly in Germany and other countries.
Richards view works in a lot more countries than the UK. You can see it even
works in Germany by just looking at how Germany is currently mapped. Fuzzy
logic is
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Cartinus wrote:
It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably
the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.
Indeed.
Yeah, but from the point of view of a resident of that
Hi!
Cartinus schrieb:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 22:53:58 Nop wrote:
Richards view works only in the UK and fails
terribly in Germany and other countries.
Richards view works in a lot more countries than the UK. You can see it even
works in Germany by just looking at how Germany is
Hi!
Steve Bennett schrieb:
Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
consistency within each country?
It would be possible to solve the problem for each country.
It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole
planet.
The real problem is
On Monday 30 November 2009 08:29:22 Nop wrote:
Let me apply your logic to a different use case. Just imagine that in my
country there is a law that generally allows bicycles to use a one-way
road in both directions.
So I would define one-way as mainly or exclusively intended for use in
one
Hi all,
(Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my head around
them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, please point me at
it)...
I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
and when
Le samedi 28 novembre 2009, Steve Bennett a écrit :
1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were
probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too.
Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them highway=path,
bicycle=yes (to be safe).
If you use
highway=path
foot=yes
bicycle=no
mtb=yes
highway=footway implies foot=designated and highway=cycleway implies
bicycle=designated.
foot=yes means you can walk there while designated means it's the
primary choise of route for pedestrians.
See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 November 2009 08:24
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Hi all,
(Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my
head around them all. Or this has been discussed extensively,
please point me at it)...
I'm doing
I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch
describes path as unofficial path - making it sound like an
unpaved line of footprints carved
Thanks all, these are very good replies. I'll have to ponder for a
bit. One complication that I should perhaps have mentioned is at the
moment I'm doing a lot of the mapping based on NearMap aerial maps, so
I can't actually observe local practice to see what's going on. Which
is why I'm inferring
Steve Bennett wrote:
Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely
nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to
cycling over walking. Conundrum.
highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's
intended for pedestrian and cycle
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
highway=footway - a path intended for pedestrian use
highway=cycleway - a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
highway=bridleway - a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]
Boy, I like this way of
The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest drawbacks of OSM.
Here's my approach:
- A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which was mostly
built by an authority. You can walk on it safely in high heels.
- A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was not
Underwater bicycling, the next Olympic sport...
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
From :stevag...@gmail.com
Date :Sat Nov 28 08:24:57 America/Chicago 2009
(Australian bias showing, I'm unable to conceive of the idea of
cycling from one
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, since I'm new here,
You're new here? Welcome to OSM.
I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter
whether this stuff is done the same across different countries? Is it
not ok if cycleway has slightly different
On Saturday 28 November 2009 14:37:12 Steve Bennett wrote:
Next question: how popular is this viewpoint? Is this a minority way
of thinking?
It was the only viewpoint before highway=path was invented. Now it is one of
several competing viewpoints without a clear winner.
--
m.v.g.,
Cartinus
I have a couple of thoughts:
1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)
2)
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the
failure of the committee process
the minority
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a couple of thoughts:
1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality -
Hi!
Roy Wallace schrieb:
The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes
confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your
own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on
to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an
area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a
path which is part of reality?
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO,
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
ever read). You must write
On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote:
2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions
is here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers are doing
something with
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an
area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a
path which is
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
