On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> there is a kind of informal guideline that states you shouldn't use
> relations for things that can be expressed with a tag (e.g. relations like
> all streets of type x in a country b should be omitted because you don't
> gain anythi
2015-04-27 16:43 GMT+02:00 Robert Kaiser :
> The only correct way to put that into a clean DB model would be to create
> a relation that has the name on it *once* and has all pieces as members to
> which the name applies, including all pieces of street, sidewalk, etc.
there is a kind of informa
pmailkeey . schrieb:
I've always considered OSM to be two maps - a geographic and a routing.
And actually, when you look deeper, both is wrong. It's first and
foremost a database of geographic information, out of which both a map
(of various styles) and a routing graph can be constructed - an
Roland Olbricht schrieb:
our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but
instead only instructions like "look for the line on the map".
To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately
mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.
On 25/04/15 17:22, pmailkeey . wrote:
> First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be
> mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If
> there is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not
> a sidewalk.
The bottom line is that thi
On 25 April 2015 at 18:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Another possibility is somewhat radical:
>
>- Non-routing or "decorative" ways for sidepaths.
>
> Maybe splitting routing tags ("how it connects") from rendering ("how it
> looks") has merit.
>
>
I've always considered OSM to be two maps - a
Another possibility is somewhat radical:
- Non-routing or "decorative" ways for sidepaths.
The current highway tags are quite good for routing a pedestrian or cyclist
from intersection to intersection, and thus
over any reasonable distance.
However there's a desire for what amounts to drawing
First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be
mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If there
is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not a
sidewalk.
Cartinus, cycleway=sidewalk is understandable by me as being a shared use
Hello,
I have no problem with most of it, but can you please come up with
something else in stead of cycleway=sidewalk. This sounds like the
cyclists have to cycle on the part of the road reserved for pedestrians
or if the cycleway itself has a sidewalk.
I don't know if cycleway=sidepath is
> Am 25.04.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Tobias Knerr :
>
>
> Uh, the example in the other thread was a fence. Grass strips are easily
> crossable for most pedestrians.
>
> Given the number of problems that arise from separately mapping
> sidewalks, we should only do it if strictly necessary. That i
> Am 25.04.2015 um 11:57 schrieb Janko Mihelić :
>
> I'm not sure about only mapping sidewalks that are separated from the road.
> I agree it has some logic to it, but what about mapping sidewalk width,
> surface, markings on the ground for the blind, and all those attributes a
> sidewalk
Hi,
On 04/25/2015 12:33 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>> To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped
>> footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.
> Why do that instead of just adding a single tag to the road?
Roland's use case is routing for p
As somebody that has mapped a fair amount of sidewalks as separate ways
(for good reasons) I'm rather split on the issue (and as a tendency
against adding names to objects that don't actually have them).
The adding a tag to the street in question is all fine and dandy, if
- it is actually a cla
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead
> only instructions like "look for the line on the map".
> To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped
> footways their
On 25.04.2015 11:29, wrote Roland Olbricht:
> A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a
> pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are
> fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes.
Uh, the example in the other thread was a fence. Grass
I agree with suggesting adding names to sidewalks.
I'm not sure about only mapping sidewalks that are separated from the
road. I agree it has some logic to it, but what about mapping sidewalk
width, surface, markings on the ground for the blind, and all those
attributes a sidewalk can have? Taggi
Dear all,
our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only
instructions like "look for the line on the map".
To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped
footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.
The suggestion
+1
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Tom Chance [mailto:t...@acrewoods.net]
Sent: 07 August 2009 23:53
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
On Friday 07 Aug 2009 23:15:39 OJ W wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Martin
>
> Koppenhoefer wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Giving a practical example of where currently pedestrian routing can't be
>> carried out ..
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.52986&lon=-0.44605&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF
>> ( I lived in Hewens Road many years ago so know that area )
>> There is a fence down the m
2009/8/8 Lester Caine :
> YES there is a problem with 'can you cross the road', but that is something
> that we simply do not YET have the information to map anyway.
> I do not like the current way relations are implemented, but a link of some
> sort combining two footways and a vehicleway into one
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:15 AM, wrote:
> a previous poster (I've lost the thread as I'm using my webmail)
> said that these could be assumed in residential areas.
>
> While residents here would like concrete paths provided in residential
> areas they are not standard by any means.
> That's why I
At 10:20 PM 7/08/2009, OJ W wrote:
>sidewalks in villages - what to do?
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898&lon=-0.524788&zoom=18
>
>are they footpaths or are they road attributes?
>
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Footway
A corollary but very important issue
Tom Chance wrote:
> If a pavement/sidewalk deviates significantly, just add a footway / cycleway
> /
> other way branching off from the main highway as appropriate. If the
> pavement/sidewalk is really quite separate, as in your Milton Keynes example
> (http://osm.org/go/eu4qDpI_3--) then by al
>> are you thinking of a paved section intended for walking, or just the
>> space
>> which here could be grass, rough ground, or even gardened?
>
> a paved surface intended for walking
>
> there are places in my village where you can walk on the grass next to
> the road - I've been marking them as
Richard Mann writes:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, OJ W wrote:
>
>> sidewalks in villages - what to do?
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898&lon=-0.524788&zoom=18
>>
>> are they footpaths or are they road attributes?
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_featur
2009/8/8 Tom Chance :
> I'm not clear about the benefit of getting this complicated! That's a lot of
> extra work!
sure. It's a project for the future, when everything is already mapped
;-), say next year.
> Also, how will a routing engine know if a way without parallel
> footways is one without p
On Friday 07 Aug 2009 23:15:39 OJ W wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Martin
>
> Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> How is routing going to know that you can cross the road if you're on
> >> a sidewalk footpath and there's another one 8m away across a
> >> residential road?
> >
> > AFAIK that's an op
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> How is routing going to know that you can cross the road if you're on
>> a sidewalk footpath and there's another one 8m away across a
>> residential road?
>
> AFAIK that's an open question. IMHO this will have to be indicated by
> rela
2009/8/7 OJ W :
> sidewalks in villages - what to do?
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898&lon=-0.524788&zoom=18
>
> are they footpaths or are they road attributes?
IMHO generally it would be better to have all those things (like
lanes) mapped separatly, and the associate them with the st
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, OJ W wrote:
> sidewalks in villages - what to do?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898&lon=-0.524788&zoom=18
>
> are they footpaths or are they road attributes?
are you thinking of a paved section intended for walking, or just the space
which here could be grass, ro
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, OJ W wrote:
> sidewalks in villages - what to do?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898&lon=-0.524788&zoom=18
>
> are they footpaths or are they road attributes?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Footway
>
If it's highway=resid
sidewalks in villages - what to do?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898&lon=-0.524788&zoom=18
are they footpaths or are they road attributes?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Footway
(probably footpaths if it's at all complicated, since the paths can
make detour
32 matches
Mail list logo