As you mention I can see these being useful for emergency services or
anyone who has been granted access to private roads/tracks.
If you're mapping based on what you can see from the aerial imagery, then I
see no issue with mapping these as access=private.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 09:46, Warin
I too stated that the way he perceives the mailing list and wrote about the
interface being poor that this might be due to the email client or settings he
is using. Unfortunately there was no reaction to this (as with most of the
other post).
I agree with Frederick that we should have more
I map them with access private because I can see them on aerial images and on
the ground. If the path is e.g. behind a high hedge I will limit to the visible
part or what I can see on aerial images.
I think mapping these roads adds value for everyone who is trying to get to the
particular
# Principle of tagging
1. Tagging should be consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction
2. Tagging should not be code but be explicit
3. Tagging should be useful
4. Tagging should be intuitive
5. Tagging should be easy (regional presets)
I will comment on the first two.
## Principle 1
ONE set
Hi,
I am in 2 minds about this ... these roads exist so they can be seen.
They might be usefull navigational features;
firstly to plot progress along a public road - you have just past this private
road so you must he here on the map.
secondly for any emergency services - mainly thinking of
On 04/10/2019 12:46, Andrew Davidson wrote:
I think at one point footway was assumed to be paved and path unpaved.
I think that it's actually a bit more complicated than that. The
"standard" style on OpenStreetMap.org changed to displaying footway and
path the same because it was clear
On 4/10/19 5:20 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
though for
something that's unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the
same thing to me.
I think at one point footway was assumed to be paved and path unpaved.
The default now appears to be unpaved for both as they are rendered the
same.
On 04/10/19 17:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see
highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single
person wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for
something that's unpaved then highway=path and
Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see
highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single person
wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for something that's
unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the same thing to me.
On
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either
> way and be proven wrong.
>
Up until May this year path meant an unsealed "track" that was too small
for vehicles (or at least that's how mappers were using them) now
I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either
way and be proven wrong.
- The footpath which runs along side the road which is not explicitly
signposted for bicycles should be highway=footway + footway=sidewalk, even
in states where you can ride on the footpath, as it's
Yes it does - sorry - I read that incorrectly by not reading the second
part.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:13 PM Ewen Hill wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now
>> basically global) so the book
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:06 PM Daniel O'Connor
wrote:
> +1.
>
> Do have to amend the bits around not legal for SA cyclists to be on
> footpaths given
> https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/23438/DPTI-Cycling-and-the-Law-Booklet.pdf
>
These days it might be easier to say everywhere
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:13 PM Ewen Hill wrote:
> Daniel,
>I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now
> basically global) so the book may be incorrect anyway
>
>
Isn't that what it says on page 3?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Daniel,
I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now basically
global) so the book may be incorrect anyway
Ewen
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:07, Daniel O'Connor
wrote:
> +1.
>
> Do have to amend the bits around not legal for SA cyclists to be on
> footpaths given
>
Herbert,
Having a look at your selection clauses below, the node and relation are
probably not required. You may also want to look at
way["highway"="cycleway"] and way["bicycle"="designated"] (regardless of
highway type)
I have also used styling so you can quickly see what the issues (real
+1.
Do have to amend the bits around not legal for SA cyclists to be on
footpaths given
https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/23438/DPTI-Cycling-and-the-Law-Booklet.pdf
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:31 PM Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging
> Guidelines
>
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Turns out that a "helpful" wiki
user radically changed the suggested way
18 matches
Mail list logo
