On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Jonathan Bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
> > Doesn't seem to stop people arguing about it on the wiki, but every
>> single time someone has claimed that there are cycleway=opposite in
>> the UK it's never (AFAIK) actually held up to scrutiny.
On 24/09/2008 15:52, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
> > Doesn't seem to stop people arguing about it on the wiki, but every
>> single time someone has claimed that there are cycleway=opposite in
>> the UK it's never (AFAIK) actually held up to scrutiny.
>
> I think Union Street in So
Andy Allan wrote:
> Doesn't seem to stop people arguing about it on the wiki, but every
> single time someone has claimed that there are cycleway=opposite in
> the UK it's never (AFAIK) actually held up to scrutiny.
I think Union Street in Southwark:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.50325&lon
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, David Earl wrote:
> Now there's an interesting thought: instead of changing the map to match the
> environment, we change the environment to match the map!
Can't remember where the quote comes from (probably the OS), but something
along the lines of "very occasionally you w
On 24/09/2008 11:46, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> cycleway=opposite_lane you mean?
Yes, sorry.
> Or we start a guerilla campaign to fix the tagging at source... a few
> fake oneway signs, a hammer, and some cable ties should do the trick.
Now there's an interesting thought: instead of changing the map
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:28 AM, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/09/2008 09:56, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>>>
whether you can just cycle the wrong way down
Not particularly relevant to current discussion, but I came a cross a
new variant of the anti-rat-run measures when mapping a new estate in
Chepstow at weekend. Two halves of the estate were separated by a road
closed to cars, but with cycle/foot access. The blocker was a lowerable
pole with lights
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Ed Loach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
>> Actually they aren't - what they are doing is making one end of
>> the
>> road no access to motorised vehicles. So the road itself is no
>> longer
>> technically oneway, so it shouldn't need cycleway=opposite..
On 24/09/2008 09:56, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>>
>>> whether you can just cycle the wrong way down
>>> the road avoiding any on coming cars.
>> I _think_ that is illegal in the UK anyway is
Andy wrote:
> Actually they aren't - what they are doing is making one end of
> the
> road no access to motorised vehicles. So the road itself is no
> longer
> technically oneway, so it shouldn't need cycleway=opposite...
So motorised vehicles can come in from the other end of the road,
approach
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> But generally the question is should "oneway to cars" be tagged as
>> oneway=yes? Because it paints a big oneway arrow on the map which
>> will confuse everyone except car-drivers.
>
> Even if you're a cyclist or
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They were experimenting with it in Kensington & Chelsea:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/news/article4061323.ece
Actually they aren't - what they are doing is making one end of the
road no access to motorised veh
Ed Loach wrote:
> Silly me. I thought all those proposed features pages, and request
> for comments on features pages and voting on features pages were the
> only way to get stuff officially added to Map Features.
Tsk tsk tsk. Not enough smilies or tags!
Nick.
___
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 24 September 2008 12:29 AM
>To: Ed Loach
>Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] not_in_map_features
>
>Hi,
>
>Ed Loach wrote:
>
>> If I'd known
>> I could have just gone in and revised it to make everything that
>> much more logical and consistent I'd hav
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>> whether you can just cycle the wrong way down
>> the road avoiding any on coming cars.
>
> I _think_ that is illegal in the UK anyway isn't it? Cycles generally have
> to follow th
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> whether you can just cycle the wrong way down
> the road avoiding any on coming cars.
I _think_ that is illegal in the UK anyway isn't it? Cycles generally
have to follow the normal rules of the road unless there is a sign
explicitly making some except
16 matches
Mail list logo