Andy Allan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Valent Turkovic
> >
> > wrote:
> >> How do you differentiate from path and footpath tag? What is the
> >> difference between them? Can you show me an example?
> >
> > As the wiki says, b
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Valent Turkovic
> wrote:
>>
>> How do you differentiate from path and footpath tag? What is the
>> difference between them? Can you show me an example?
>
> As the wiki says, briefly:
>
> highway=path is "a ge
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2009/9/16 Shaun McDonald :
>
>> Oh please don't reopen the debate about the highway=path tag. Please read
>> the archives, there are some very, very, very long topics on this recently.
>
> I missed that as I was in holiday. What did you
2009/9/16 Shaun McDonald :
> Oh please don't reopen the debate about the highway=path tag. Please read
> the archives, there are some very, very, very long topics on this recently.
I missed that as I was in holiday. What did you agree on?
cheers,
Martin
_
2009/9/10 Frankie Roberto :
> 2009/9/10 Valent Turkovic
>>
>> Hi,
>> how should I map this -
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/valent_turkovic/3900795904/
>
> Seeing as it looks like the cycleway and footpath are complete segregated
> (by a clear gutter, not just a painted line), you could always dr
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Valent Turkovic
wrote:
>
> How do you differentiate from path and footpath tag? What is the
> difference between them? Can you show me an example?
As the wiki says, briefly:
highway=path is "a generic path" (i.e. any path)
highway=footway (not "footpath") is "a
On 16 Sep 2009, at 15:42, Valent Turkovic wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:14:15 +0200, Ben Laenen wrote:
The only thing highway=path says is that wide vehicles like cars
can't
drive there.
How do you differentiate from path and footpath tag? What is the
difference between them? Can you show
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:10:48 +0200, Marc Schütz wrote:
> I would suggest using segregated=yes/no, as described on the bottom of
> this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
Is this tag in use? I haven't seen it widely used... is there a reason
why people don't use it?
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:14:15 +0200, Ben Laenen wrote:
> The only thing highway=path says is that wide vehicles like cars can't
> drive there.
How do you differentiate from path and footpath tag? What is the
difference between them? Can you show me an example?
--
pratite me na twitteru - www.
Eagerness should be channelled, not suppressed.
Richard
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> And I would be tempted to tag it
> highway=footway
> graffiti=yes
>
> I am beginning to think cycleway gets added by eager cyclists far more
> often than should really happen.
>
And I would be tempted to tag it
highway=footway
graffiti=yes
I am beginning to think cycleway gets added by eager cyclists far more often
than should really happen.
Jason Cunningham
user:jamicu
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM, James Livingston wrote:
> >
> > I don't
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM, James Livingston wrote:
>
> I don't really want to get into this argument again, but I believe
> that either we're going to end up with local rules for the access
> mappings, or some regions are going to have to tag every single
> cycleway/footway with overrides.
On 10/09/2009, at 9:01 PM, Sybren A. Stüvel wrote:
> Perhaps my perspective is very Dutch, as here in NL you are always
> allowed to walk on a cycleway. When a pedestrian sees a cycleway on
> the map she'll know that she can walk on it and use it as a footpath.
> However, when a cyclist sees a foot
I think we've seen (several times) the different meanings given in
the wiki guidelines in different languages/ for different countries;
there's little to gain from discussing them over again _until_ someone
makes a proposal to clear the issue with well written explanations.
But I want to note
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM, James Livingston wrote:
>
> Most of the arguments I saw in the previous debate stemmed from two
> questions:
> * If a path can be used by both cyclists and pedestrians but has no
> signage (or has signage for both), should it be footway or cycleway?
> * What does *
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Shaun McDonald
wrote:
>
> This isn't a highway=path since the surface is tarmac.
This is irrelevant. Highway=path does not make any implication on
surface: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
___
talk
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> This isn't a highway=path since the surface is tarmac.
highway=path + surface=tarmac
Plenty of <=1 meter wide paths around that have concrete/tarmac/asphalt
surfaces, for instance.
From all the discussion in the past year, or at least since the
invention of =designate
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > I'd use highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=designated
> > (foot=designated if you feel that the concrete on the left of the
> > divider has been "specially designated" for pedestrians, otherwise I'd
> > use foot=yes)
>
> T
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:46:50PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
> I think the first question mostly was the cyclists wanting cycleway
> and the non-cyclists wanting footway. Both ways are perfectly valid,
> and I can't see either being picked without flipping a coin.
Perhaps my perspective is ve
On 10 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM, John Smith
wrote:
2009/9/10 James Livingston :
Because of the presence of the bicycle symbol on the ground, I'd say
highway=cycleway;bicycle=designated;foot=yes. If that wasn't there,
I'd say footway=yes;bicycle=
On 10/09/2009, at 8:32 PM, David Earl wrote:
> Therein lies the problem with each of these debates that comes up
> every couple of months - while everyone would agree* that cycleways
> accommodate cyclists, the rules vary around the world about what
> else is allowed by default.
>
> I don't s
On 10/09/2009 11:29, John Smith wrote:
> Seems like a silly argument for requiring redundency when it's
implied anyway.
>
> Most path ways in Australia ...
Therein lies the problem with each of these debates that comes up every
couple of months - while everyone would agree* that cycleways
ac
2009/9/10 James Livingston :
> I do too. However after the last discussion a lot of people seemed to
> think it only implied bicycle=yes not bicycle=designated, so I'd add
> it explicitly because of the designation marking on the ground. Of
> course, I don't think anyone agreed on what designated
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/10 James Livingston :
>
>> Because of the presence of the bicycle symbol on the ground, I'd say
>> highway=cycleway;bicycle=designated;foot=yes. If that wasn't there,
>> I'd say footway=yes;bicycle=yes
>
> Isn't that redundent?
>
> I assu
On 10/09/2009, at 8:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/10 James Livingston :
>> Because of the presence of the bicycle symbol on the ground, I'd say
>> highway=cycleway;bicycle=designated;foot=yes. If that wasn't there,
>> I'd say footway=yes;bicycle=yes
>
> Isn't that redundent?
>
> I assume highwa
> highway=cycleway
> foot=yes
> cycleway=separated (not a Map Features value)
>
> I acknowledge a personal bias towards mapping for cyclists, others will
> disagree. My rationale is: As a cyclist, I am looking for cycleways on the
> map. As a pedestrian, I'd like to know if I can got for a nice qu
2009/9/10 Valent Turkovic
> Hi,
> how should I map this -
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/valent_turkovic/3900795904/
>
Seeing as it looks like the cycleway and footpath are complete segregated
(by a clear gutter, not just a painted line), you could always draw two
parallel ways, one tagged as a
2009/9/10 James Livingston :
> Because of the presence of the bicycle symbol on the ground, I'd say
> highway=cycleway;bicycle=designated;foot=yes. If that wasn't there,
> I'd say footway=yes;bicycle=yes
Isn't that redundent?
I assume highway=cycleway to imply bicycle=designated
___
On 10/09/2009, at 7:01 PM, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> how should I map this -
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/valent_turkovic/3900795904/
>
> highway=cycleway + pedestrian=yes
>
> OR
>
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes
>
> Are these two the same? What is the difference?
Be prepared for a long drawn ou
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> Hi,
> how should I map this -
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/valent_turkovic/3900795904/
>
> highway=cycleway + pedestrian=yes
>
> OR
>
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes
>
> Are these two the same? What is the difference?
Valent thank you for your questio
Valent Turkovic wrote:
> Hi,
> how should I map this -
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/valent_turkovic/3900795904/
>
> highway=cycleway + pedestrian=yes
>
> OR
>
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes
>
> Are these two the same? What is the difference?
>
>
I prefer highway=cycleway + foot=yes.
Cheers,
highway=cycleway
foot=yes
cycleway=separated (not a Map Features value)
I acknowledge a personal bias towards mapping for cyclists, others will
disagree. My rationale is: As a cyclist, I am looking for cycleways on the map.
As a pedestrian, I'd like to know if I can got for a nice quiet meander
September 2009 10:02
> To: Talk Openstreetmap
> Subject: [OSM-talk] how to map this? cycleway or footpath?
>
> Hi,
> how should I map this -
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/valent_turkovic/3900795904/
>
> highway=cycleway + pedestrian=yes
>
> OR
>
> highway=footwa
Hi,
how should I map this - http://www.flickr.com/photos/valent_turkovic/3900795904/
highway=cycleway + pedestrian=yes
OR
highway=footway + bicycle=yes
Are these two the same? What is the difference?
--
pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux,
34 matches
Mail list logo
