On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Ari Torhamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pe, 2008-05-02 kello 00:28 +0200, Martin Simon kirjoitti:
Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 13:37:32 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder):
OK, you're totally right at this, it seems difficult to define structure
of
road surfaces
pe, 2008-05-02 kello 11:07 +0100, Dave Stubbs kirjoitti:
The main problem with this kind of idea is it's complete subjectivity.
The bike_suitability style of tag is less of a problem because there's
a fairly clear reference point: ie: would you be happy cycling a road
bike down this path, or
At 09:35 PM 30/04/2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hello everyone,
Slight dilemma with what to do about wide, off road (countryside) tracks
with official cycle access, in the light of the countryside mapping
suggestions I made last week on the wiki. How do cyclists in general tag
these?
80n schrieb:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Nick Whitelegg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
highway=track; bicycle=yes|permissive; [surface=gravel]
bicycle=yes and surface=gravel are an incompatible combination in my book
;)
IMO, bicycle=yes means cycling is allowed, or at least, it is not
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Sent: 01 May 2008 7:36 AM
To: 80n
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
snip
Wondering whether using surface=gravel is already understood by the
renderers? Thus far, I was using unpaved exclusively.
I too have been using unpaved
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:39:15PM +0100, 80n wrote:
bicycle=yes and surface=gravel are an incompatible combination in my book ;)
There's gravel and there's gravel though - pea gravel like my
grandfather had on his drive (in the New Forest!) and had to rake
after cars had been over it is
Stephen Gower wrote:
Sent: 01 May 2008 10:39 AM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:39:15PM +0100, 80n wrote:
bicycle=yes and surface=gravel are an incompatible combination in my book
;)
There's gravel and there's gravel
Andy Robinson \(blackadder\) wrote:
Perhaps this is the better way to think about it. I generally don't like
subjective tagging, but in this instance giving an opinion about how usable
a section of way is might be better. If you simplified bike types into
road, hybrid and mtb then I guess you
Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 11:56:16 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder):
Perhaps this is the better way to think about it. I generally don't like
subjective tagging, but in this instance giving an opinion about how usable
a section of way is might be better. If you simplified bike types into
At 01:01 PM 1/05/2008, Martin Simon wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 11:56:16 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder):
Perhaps this is the better way to think about it. I generally don't like
subjective tagging, but in this instance giving an opinion about how usable
a section of way is might be
Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 13:37:32 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder):
It was because of the difficulty of defining unpaved surfaces that this
thread branched off. If you can come up with a method for tagging the
make-up of natural surfaces then great, but its not easy in my view or I'd
be
pe, 2008-05-02 kello 00:28 +0200, Martin Simon kirjoitti:
Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 13:37:32 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder):
OK, you're totally right at this, it seems difficult to define structure of
road surfaces - several proposals in the wiki exist, but none seems to have
seen
Hello everyone,
Slight dilemma with what to do about wide, off road (countryside) tracks
with official cycle access, in the light of the countryside mapping
suggestions I made last week on the wiki. How do cyclists in general tag
these?
highway=track; bicycle=yes|permissive; [surface=gravel]
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Nick Whitelegg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello everyone,
Slight dilemma with what to do about wide, off road (countryside) tracks
with official cycle access, in the light of the countryside mapping
suggestions I made last week on the wiki. How do cyclists in
14 matches
Mail list logo
