On 4/2/22 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, wrote:
I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect
have a boundary relation.
In which case it would be possible to either:
a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with
that
are affected, and at that time figure out a) because you can’t just blindly
change all tags if there might be explicit signs in place.
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sent: Friday, 4 February 2022 14:12
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
Thanks, both!
Yep, get's very messy very quickly :-(
Thanks
Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
: OSM-Au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:
I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a
boundary relation.
In which case it would be possible to
, 4 February 2022 10:06 AM
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:
I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a
bo
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, wrote:
> I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a
> boundary relation.
>
>
>
> In which case it would be possible to either:
>
>
>
> a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply
> or (maybe better in this
...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 8:27 PM
To: 'OSM-Au'
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a
boundary relation.
In which case it would be possible to either:
a) tag a def: directly on that boundary
and the re-use them for all national parks.
Cheers,
Thorsten
From: Phil Wyatt
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 18:38
To: 'Little Maps' ; 'OSM-Au'
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
I probably should have qualified my comment as I am dealing solely with tracks
within National Parks
To: Phil Wyatt ; OSM-Au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
Hi all, thanks for a really informative discussion. I’m puzzled by the comments
I’ve copied below. I’m uncertain when legislative defaults apply (and hence
explicit access tagging isn’t required) and when tagging is needed
My 2¢ here, as both an avid runner/hiker and bike rider (in NSW). Most of my
editing is along those lines, along with tracks through the bush when I go
exploring. I’m particularly conscious of routing issues and fixing them if
there’s an issue†, given I use a number of route planners that use
Hi all, thanks for a really informative discussion. I’m puzzled by the comments
I’ve copied below. I’m uncertain when legislative defaults apply (and hence
explicit access tagging isn’t required) and when tagging is needed. In the
instance mentioned below, bicycle = no should not be added to
Hi,
On 3/2/22 09:34, Phil Wyatt wrote:
…. and then work on getting the def:syntax incorporated as defaults
into the database somehow?
That would be good, but I'm not sure how to do it.
One place to start would be to mention on
...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 11:13 PM
To: 'OSM-Au'
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
Tasmania: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652>
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652
There seems to be only a single default key defined for Ta
is largely undefined and undefinable. Which is what the
situation is right now.
From: Andy Townsend
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 23:31
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
On 02/02/2022 11:36, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:
On 2/2/22 21:45
On 02/02/2022 11:36, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:
On 2/2/22 21:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its
not usually editable by mappers?
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652
Specifically the tag:
, depending…).
Cheers,
Thorsten
From: Phil Wyatt
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 20:13
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au'
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
So how do YOU decide which to use when the track is for ‘exclusively for foot
traffic’ or do you just mix
access:bicycle"=yes
Jervis Bay Territory: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2357330
none
From: Phil Wyatt
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 20:46
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au'
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
Hi Thorsten,
Is there somewher
On 2/2/22 21:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its
not usually editable by mappers?
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652
Specifically the tag: def:highway=footway;access:bicycle = yes
While it appears to be editable just
Hi Thorsten,
Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its not
usually editable by mappers?
Cheers - Phil
From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 9:00 PM
To: 'OSM-Au'
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
That table
2022 8:58 PM
To: 'OSM-Au'
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
In the end, the only thing that counts is what is tagged on the objects in the
database, and the OSM database API does not impose any restrictions about that.
I believe even iD allows you in the end to just freely specify
be made to reflect whatever you want.
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:32
To: Phil Wyatt
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OSM-Au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 17:24, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >
out some tagging scheme that adequately
describes the situation you linked to.
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:29
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 16:54, mailto:osm.talk
It can be anything you want, as long as you add enough explicit access tags.
From: Phil Wyatt
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:20
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au'
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
Thanks Thorsten,
So reading from that chart and in regard
Thanks Tom - all opinions welcome and yours seems to partly equate with the
current reality in OSM (at least in Australia)
-Original Message-
From: Tom Brennan
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 8:27 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
I suspect
I suspect it might be hard to come up with definitive criteria, but I
think you could come close.
I agree that there do tend to be some edge cases - typically:
1. Dirt/roughly paved paths in urban areas - I prefer "path" for these,
as they might be less suited to people with mobility issues
2.
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
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
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
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
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
#Australia
From: Phil Wyatt
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 11:00
To: OSM-Au
Subject: [talk-au] Path versus Footway
Hi Folks,
I am contemplating a review of 'walking tracks' tagging in Tasmania,
outside of urban areas
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.
31 matches
Mail list logo
