RE:
> Are the issues any different for motor vehicles and cyclists? The frequency
> and severity are different, the reference photos are different but I would
> expect the issues and principles to be the same. Maybe just have a single
> page about tracks?
Hi Tony, yes, I agree, most issues
Changing subject from tracks for a minute :-), I was reading the weekly
Newsletter yesterday & spotted this article
https://www-openstreetmap-org.translate.goog/user/AngocA/diary/398423?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=EN&_x_tr_hl=en-GB,
concerning clearing up all the outstanding OSM Notes in Colombia.
thanks for compiling the walking tracks page ...
It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages
for walking tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep
coming up on the forum.
Good idea, ...
Vehicle tracks should be less controversial and easier. MTB paths is
Hi all
I was reading about the Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal Land (CYPAL)
here:
https://go.halfcut.org/halfcut-2021/posts/healing-the-land-healing-ourselves
Nominatim lists many areas that include the string in the name:
On 25/01/2022 22:43, David Wales via Talk-au wrote:
2. Practically invisible on the ground, except for bits of red tape
hanging from tree branches every 50-100 metres!
Every 50-100 meters? Luxury! :)
My recollection is that the signage on the bits of the Bibbulmun Track
near Denmark in WA
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey
wrote:
>
> If I were to design the ideal tag for Australia, it would be something
> like:
>
> technicality=0-3
>
> 0. Well formed, even surface (could almost walk it blindfolded).
> 1. Uneven surface, trip hazards from rocks, tree roots etc.
> 2. Large
In my area there are walks which are:
1. In a published local guide
2. Practically invisible on the ground, except for bits of red tape hanging
from tree branches every 50-100 metres!
3. Definitely unofficial
I've traced them from my personal GPX recordings, and named them according to
the
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 21:34, Tom Brennan wrote:
> > If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so
> > keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better
> > suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into.
> It's probably easier, if less
If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so
keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better
suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into.
It's probably easier, if less correct, to use an existing tag that has
supporting
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 18:32, Tom Brennan wrote:
> On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note...
>
> Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail
> difficulty in an Australian context?
>
> Personally, I hate the idea, because:
> - Australia has little in the
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:22, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi Andrew, thanks for compiling the walking tracks page, it’s a great
> resource. It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages
> for walking tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep
> coming up on the
Hi Andrew, thanks for compiling the walking tracks page, it’s a great resource.
It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages for walking
tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep coming up on the
forum.
I think the section “why shouldn’t closed tracks
12 matches
Mail list logo
