On Monday 10 Aug 2009 02:01:25 John Smith wrote:
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
A normal road:
bicycle=unspecified or no
As I said, I don't cycle much so I'm just trying to think through the
possibilities, if you're looking for a primary purpose maybe that's
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
A normal road:
bicycle=unspecified or no
As I said, I don't cycle much so I'm just trying to think through the
possibilities, if you're looking for a primary purpose maybe that's how to
look
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Ben Kelleyben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
In NSW a shared path means foot=yes, bicycle=yes. The default in NSW for
highway=footway (or highway=path) is bicycle=no (same as the OSM
conventions).
No, highway=path does not imply bicycle=no (please see the wiki page).
Umm, not the case at all. Highway= comes from the old english use,
where highway means way/path/track you use to get somewhere. These
days we assume roads and cars, but that's not the way it was
originally designed.
Stephen
2009/8/10 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
To play devils advocate
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Stephen Hope wrote:
Umm, not the case at all. Highway= comes from the old english use,
where highway means way/path/track you use to get somewhere.
highways are in contrast to byways
where the highway is the main road
but discussing the etymology isn't going to help OSM
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
then we have the same problem as the Germans
where path is path for feet
cycleway is path for bicycles
and you cannot assume that it is shared at all
and you cannot assume it isn't shared either, people may not tag all uses
because they
Hi.
2009/8/8 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com
Can someone marking in these cycle paths comment on if there is common
widths or what width would people deem to be a footway, cycleway, bridleway,
etc?
For me the important point is whether you can cycle on the path or not. For
the purposes
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
i think we should mark highway=cycleway where it is a cycleway
What is a cycleway? Is it defined in a verifiable way?
i accept that highway=path could be subdivided into everything
but to me path is primarily foot use first
This is
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
A normal road:
bicycle=unspecified or no
As I said, I don't cycle much so I'm just trying to think through the
possibilities, if you're looking for a primary purpose maybe that's how to look
at this.
To play devils advocate here
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
What is a cycleway? Is it defined in a verifiable way?
Yes they have signs up with pictures of bicycles.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
What is a cycleway? Is it defined in a verifiable way?
Yes they have signs up with pictures of bicycles.
So you seem to be suggesting:
1. for a way signed
That ain't going to happen - far too much effort involved to do that properly
everywhere on every shared path.
John
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
For width, use width=*.
___
Talk-au mailing list
When new to an area, what would lead me to take one path over several
alternatives.
I don't really want to ride them all before I know which one cyclists usually
use.
John
--- Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=yes.
Why isn't that a good idea? All
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:50 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
With all footpaths being shared paths here in the ACT, what makes a good
cycling path is sometimes difficult to pin down.
If the meaning of a tag is difficult to pin down, IMHO it is
probably not verifiable and therefore probably not a good
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:03 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
Think of the situation with roads, and the multitude of different tags
available to show how important the road is.
We only need two (or maybe three at most) to say whether a shared path is a
good cycling path. And then a few guidelines
At the moment I'm not trying to define anything. But a shared path that's
frequently used by cyclists means it's used as a cycleway.
And that';s worth knowing.
John
--- Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you suggesting that a cycleway should be defined as the path that cyclists
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, j...@talk21.com wrote:
At the moment I'm not trying to define anything. But a shared path that's
frequently used by cyclists means it's used as a cycleway.
And that';s worth knowing.
John
--- Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you suggesting that a
Hi.
It would be good to sort out the highway=cycleway/footway/path issue.
It seems that the status quo is What do you think the primary purpose is?
Part of the problem is that things like:
highway=cycleway
foot=yes
renders quite differently to:
highway=footway
bicycle=yes
(esp on the cycle
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Ben Kelley wrote:
I think I know of only one exclusive cycleway.
I can think of several
the western side of the big coathanger
There's a big one in Adelaide the Veloway
and maybe a few in Canberra
I foud by googling
one on King street Sydney
I've added a lot of cycleways in North Canberra recently.
In the ACT, virtually all footpaths are legally shared (foot and bike) paths.
So I've tagged most of the wider ones as highway=cycleway, foot=yes. This is
how I understand the suggestion in the Australian Tagging Guidelines.
Where the
G'day,
I'm not saying don't use cycleway, but instead use it only for these exclusive
paths.
Just choosing a specific tag because of the way it renders on the main map is
not a good idea, this is why a variety of maps are appearing to please
specific groups and will improve with time.
Sorting
My preference is for greater use of highway=path with it defaulting to
foot=yes and then additional access tags relating to surface, access by
bicycles, horses, etc. Basically I think anything which is not designed for
a car should be a path.
I would actually propose abolishing highway=footway
I believe the present system works better than the simplified system proposed.
With a system of shared paths, the simplified system would result in all paths
being treated the same. They would become indiscernible.
This link provides a good example: http://osm.org/go/uNP_xlQv
All paths marked
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
I have a strong feeling that this would be unacceptable. We need to know
about different types of path and road. Just knowing that they're suitable
for bicycles or for motor traffic isn't enough. Such dumbing-down of the
data to meet a
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:56 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure no one was suggesting this (i.e. removing
information). It's the way the information in entered in
tags that is
being discussed. The fact is
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Gah... don't tag for the renderer.
We're not tagging for the renderer, we're tagging to describe something,
perhaps this is just a case of needing a width and to render accordingly,
however you need something more than just
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, highway=path should almost always have accompanying
tags to
give more details. I think this is quite reasonable.
For width, use width=*.
Can someone marking in these cycle paths comment on if there is common widths
or
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Gah... don't tag for the renderer.
We're not tagging for the renderer, we're tagging to describe something,
perhaps this is just a case of needing a width and to render accordingly,
however you need something more than just
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, ed...@billiau.net ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The seafront area in Cairns has a mixture of cycle only
paths / shared use
paths / pedestrian paths through a single big park area
So something that rendered those differently would be
ideal. I know we
should not tag for the
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ashley Kyda...@kyd.com.au wrote:
I'm really not
convinced that [it's] a good idea, for renderer *or* semantics to tag a
government-designated cycleway as a path with bike access.
So, something that's currently a highway=cycleway, right?
highway=path;
30 matches
Mail list logo
