Anthony wrote:
You seem to have missed the rest of my post. I was arguing that a road
with no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe. OTOH, if the road
has no shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day,
I'm not walking down it.
I think the POINT here is that
On 2 June 2010 17:32, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
'Safe' for pedestrians to use is simply undefinable as we have already decided
when trying to identify URBAN areas where one would not walk on one's own!
MAPS
I disagree that this is an undefinable problem, as I pointed out
before
John Smith wrote:
If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
safe.
Only if you do the same for other vehicles - highway with lots of
crashes
2010/6/2 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
With many high-speed highways (such as Interstate Highways in the USA,
Autobahn in Germany, etc.) you may have wide shoulders, but pedestrian use on
the shoulders is inadvisable and/or illegal, because crossing to the other
side means having to
On 2 June 2010 18:49, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
I was one of them if you check my replies.
bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
see you, and you can easily see and get out of
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
John Smith wrote:
If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
.
--Original Message--
From: John Smith
Sender: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
To: Nathan Edgars II
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Sent: Jun 2, 2010 4:10 AM
On 2 June 2010 18:49, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote
On 2 June 2010 22:06, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would
say, yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.. This would be particularly
suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others,
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
see you, and
Good suggestion.
--Original Message--
From: John Smith
To: John Eldredge
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Sent: Jun 2, 2010 7:19 AM
On 2 June 2010 22:06, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
I agree that foot_unsafe
On 02.06.2010 14:19, John Smith wrote:
You could extend it a little and explain more specifically:
unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc
routing:hints:foot:avoid=yes
routing:hints:foot:comment=fast traffic
routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment=street layout
On 2 June 2010 23:03, Henry Loenwind he...@loenwind.info wrote:
routing:hints:bike:comment=foot traffic avoidance costs time
Looks good, except I'd use note instead of comment, only because it is
more commonly used already.
___
talk mailing list
Anthony wrote:
Room to get off the road. That's what I was referring to as a shoulder.
Here in the third world (Derbyshire, England) we call those hedges.
If I avoided walking along roads without a shoulder or sidewalk of any
sort I wouldn't get very far.
I think that we're hitting
Nic Roets wrote:
Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average
people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map
Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc.
One advantage that OSM has over the commercial people is that routes get
mapped proportionately to how real
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write
software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward
compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't
want to waste time on
On 06/02/2010 03:03 PM, Henry Loenwind wrote:
routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment=street layout hard to follow for non-locals
routing:hints:motorcar:prefer=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment=faster traffic than the parallel primary
Nice.. +1
This would be nice
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2010 09:52, Tim McNamara paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz wrote:
Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still
need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury.
The only
On 1 June 2010 17:04, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
That's an interesting article. But the details are sketchy: 300,000
out of a total of how many ? Are there any controlled studies where
I don't think there needs another total, I'm guessing people blamed
the accident on their satnav when
1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for
pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki)
Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and
which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no
restrictions in place
On 1 June 2010 22:33, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote:
2...Had a look at that American road in Google Satelitte
(http://tinyurl.com/33dvn78) If I was that women I'd be more worried about
the colour of the Golf Courses. That's the most unnatural shade of green
I've ever seen.
On 1 June 2010 13:33, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote:
1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for
pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki)
Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and
which clearly
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
On 1 June 2010 13:33, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote:
1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal'
for
pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki)
Recently come
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
subject assessments like how dangerous a road is.
Ideally, yes. But routing software
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Elena of Valhalla
elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/10, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would
advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with
foot=no and add a note
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
subject
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic
correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but
they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other
cases extreme footways
2010/6/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
subject assessments like how dangerous a road is.
Hmm, is shoulder a fairly universal term? Because shoulder=no would be
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
subject assessments like how dangerous a
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Looking more closely, there is a sidewalk, which turns into a cycleway
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40967519), about 50 feet from the
roadway, on the southbound side which is the same side she was walking on.
And if
Jeffrey, when the thread was started the cycleway was incorrectly
tagged, but I fixed it soon afterwards. Cloudmade will catch up soon
enough.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Looking more
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:38 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2 June 2010 10:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
You seem to have missed the rest of my post. I was arguing that a road
with
no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe. OTOH, if the road has
no
shoulder,
On 2 June 2010 12:04, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
So, technically, here in Florida, walking on the roadway when there is a
shoulder available (and practicable) would be illegal. Interestingly,
shoulder does not seem to be defined in the law, but I've always assumed
it meant the part of the
On 1 June 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
http://searchengineland.com/woman-follows-google-maps-walking-directions-gets-hit-sues-43212
I wonder if she's eligible for an honourable mention from the darwin
awards?
After all the brouhaha maybe
Hugh Pickens writes The Toronto Star reports that a Utah woman is
suing Google for more than $100,000 in damages, claiming its maps
function gave her walking directions that led her onto a major
highway, where she was struck by a car. Lauren Rosenberg sought
directions between two addresses in
On 5/31/2010 4:36 PM, John Smith wrote:
Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her
that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk.
Did Google add their notice after the fact?
*Walking directions are in beta.* Use caution -- This route may be
Hi,
Nakor wrote:
Did Google add their notice after the fact?
I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them
and have already found it saves me some embarassment.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
On 5/31/2010 5:29 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Nakor wrote:
Did Google add their notice after the fact?
I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them
and have already found it saves me some embarassment.
Bye
Frederik
They claim the warning was not displayed on
On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Nakor wrote:
Did Google add their notice after the fact?
I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them
and have already found it saves me some embarassment.
In this case it doesn't matter if there
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:40 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Nakor wrote:
Did Google add their notice after the fact?
I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them
and have
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:40 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Nakor wrote:
Did Google add their notice after the fact?
I am trying to make
On 1 June 2010 09:23, Nakor nakor@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/2010 4:36 PM, John Smith wrote:
Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her
that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk.
Did Google add their notice after the fact?
*Walking
On 1 June 2010 09:52, Tim McNamara paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz wrote:
Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still
need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury.
The only thing that is new in all this is pedestrian routing, people
have been following
42 matches
Mail list logo
