Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

Probably worth starting a routing thread rather than merge with a specific questions on foot traffic only thread Cheers - Phil From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 6:29 PM To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 17:24, Phil Wyatt wrote: > > > So reading from that chart and in regard to my query about ‘tracks that > are exclusively for foot traffic’ you would say it can ONLY be a footway? > By that list, yes? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au ma

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 16:54, wrote: > As far as I’m concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all > essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different > implied default access restrictions. > > > > We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

I suggest leaving the bus stop ID number in the format that Andrew initially stated, ref=20 (rather than ref:stand=A) As a regular used of buses (pre-covid), I think "Stand A" etc needs to be part of the name. At some locations, the stands are a block or more apart (such as the multiple

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 11:03, Phil Wyatt wrote: > some criteria where a footway ends and path commences > As I mentioned last week, I've started using path for just about everything just to get away from adding foot=yes to bike paths & bike=yes to footpaths :-) Thanks Graeme ___

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

Thanks Thorsten, So reading from that chart and in regard to my query about 'tracks that are exclusively for foot traffic' you would say it can ONLY be a footway? Cheers - Phil From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 5:51 PM To: 'OSM-Au' Subject: Re:

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

As far as I'm concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different implied default access restrictions. We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed here are: https://wiki.openstre

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

local_ref has been used it at least the UK and Sweden to tag the stand number. It doesn't (yet) render on the OSM map main layer but does on the transport layers.    /Mike https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:local_ref Swedish example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/59.39035/18.043

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1128912626 is an okay example, with ref being the Stop ID, and name being the stop name with the stand number appended to the end. So in your case, ref=20 name=Kings Cross Station Darlinghurst Rd, Stand A I don't think this is perfect but probably the best

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Since only Northern Territory, Queensland and Victoria remain with inconsistencies, I only created those challenges. Will add other states if new changes creep in with a different format. Victoria - https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24424 Queensland - https://maproulette.org/browse/chal

[talk-au] Path versus Footway

Hi Folks, I am contemplating a review of 'walking tracks' tagging in Tasmania, outside of urban areas. In my case I am starting with tracks that are exclusively for foot traffic. My investigation has led me to what appears to be a conflict within OSM of what is the correct tagging to use.

[talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

What is the convention for tagging Sydney bus stops? I stumbled upon one but not sure how to tag the stop number and the stand letter so put those details in the note field https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9465614221 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@op