Mike Harris wrote:
> Be careful with "dogging" - it has a quite different meaning in British
> English (;>) - on the other hand, I think you did mention it was in Oregon,
> so maybe ...
I wasn't entirely unaware of the connotation... it does successfully
screw over cycle traffic, especially if the
option!
Mike Harris
_
From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 01 May 2009 13:15
To: Andy Allan
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
About 14000 of the 14990 appear to be using highway=path for
About 14000 of the 14990 appear to be using highway=path for woodland paths,
in Germany, and without designated access tags. The punters appear to want
something that doesn't show up as a footway/cycleway.
Richard
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10
-
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
Sent: 30 April 2009 22:54
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote:
>> If such paths are designated for
2:48
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote:
> It comes down to what you think is meant by "highway=cycleway". If you
> think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't
> want to apply that to a sh
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
> I assume that highway=cycleway is a path developed outside a road
> right-of-way, primarily for cycling (and the topic that you have been
> discussing in this thread). The illustration on the Map Features page lacks
> enough surrounding c
April 2009 19:40
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I'm one of the people mapping paths (since March) who scans this list, and I
have to say that I'm confused. Although part of that may be because I'm new
to OSM and not just to
Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote:
>> If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you
>> tag them both as designated?
>> highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway
>> +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foo
Richard Mann wrote:
> It comes down to what you think is meant by "highway=cycleway". If you
> think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want
> to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route.
Depends on jurisdiction, of course. One problem OSM has with handling
Oregon a
Richard Mann wrote:
> Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is
> it different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
At least when I'm trying to decide, I ask two questions: 1) Does it
allow bicycles, and 2) Is it wide enough for two cyclists going
y good to get this sorted out before lots more people here become
involved.
Ed Hillsman
>On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:59:50 +0100, Andy Allen
>gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
>To: Richard Mann
>Cc: talk@ope
ginal Message-
From: Ben Laenen [mailto:benlae...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 April 2009 17:21
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
>
> wrote:
> &
Sent: 30 April 2009 15:10
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer,
especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for "raw" paths as
you
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 April 2009 17:00
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
wrote:
> I'd
t: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote:
> There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go
> on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are
> designed and designated for b
e other to avoid possible future confusion?
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Mario Salvini [mailto:salv...@t-online.de]
Sent: 30 April 2009 12:10
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny schrieb:
> On Thu, Apr 30,
Fully agree - and this seems to be in the spirit of most current practice
...
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: James Stewart [mailto:j.k.stew...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: 30 April 2009 11:37
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
There are
2009/4/30, Andy Allan :
> Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being
> used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing
> it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990
> people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussio
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
>
> wrote:
> > I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map
> > layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used
>
> Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* cl
full ack
some tags are too confusing ...
on a lighter note: from tagwatch
typo or protest against a "very_horrible" tag ;-)
smoothmess horrible (4), impassable (1)
On 30 Apr 2009, at 8:59 , Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
> wrote:
>> I'd support that high
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
wrote:
> I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer,
> especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used
Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being
used to me. And I'm mightily concerned
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer,
especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for "raw" paths as
you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good
starting point.
If "path" was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use
Richard Mann wrote:
> ... I've come to the view that "cycleway" should be used
> if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and
> nobody's obviously objecting.
I'd agree with that. As a non-cyclist I don't feel somehow
discriminated against because somewhere that I wa
It comes down to what you think is meant by "highway=cycleway". If you think
that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply
that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. But cycle superhighways are pretty
rare, and "highway=cycleway" is used much more widely than that. I've c
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote:
> If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you
> tag them both as designated?
> highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway
> +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted)
I do that, whe
Jacek Konieczny schrieb:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote:
>
>> There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go
>> on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are
>> designed and designated for bicycles.
>>
>
> Sure.
>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote:
> There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go
> on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are
> designed and designated for bicycles.
Sure.
> For example in our local park bikes can go o
>Risk?!
>Misuse how?
>Dave
My idea:
highway=cycleway OR (highway=footway,bicycle=permissive) don't care which
(so will be picked up by bike-orientated maps)
*and*
foot=designated
designation=public_footpath
so that foot orientated renderers like Freemap will pick it up as a public
right of
There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go
on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are
designed and designated for bicycles.
For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there
are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are
2009/4/30 Mike Harris :
> At the risk of reopening earlier very lengthy discussions - this suggestion
> seems to me to be an unnecessary misuse of the tag highway=cycleway which
> has an accepted and fairly well agreed meaning. It also seems to be a prima
> facie case of tagging for the renderers!
needs to be adjusted - not the data!
Mike Harris
_
From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 29 April 2009 21:10
To: Marc Schütz
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Why not tag it as a cycleway
Not all cycleways allow foot access, so tagging them as cycleway with
foot=yes with the same issue, just with the modes of transportation
reversed - how do you tell a cycleway which allows foot traffic from
one that doesn't?
IMO, having a foot+cycle rendering separate from foot-only or
cycle-only
Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it
different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
Richard
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Marc Schütz wrote:
> Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where
> riding a bicycle is
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where riding a
bicycle is allowed with bicycle={yes,designated} are rendered as normal
footways, so there is no way to see that they are open for bikes.
Is there a chance this could be shown on Mapnik, or at least on the cyclemap?
34 matches
Mail list logo
