Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Dave Stubbs
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.

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread David Earl
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Jonathan Bennett
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Steve Hill
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread David Earl
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Dave Stubbs
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Steve Chilton
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Andy Allan
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..

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread David Earl
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Ed Loach
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Andy Allan
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Andy Allan
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

Re: [Talk-GB] not_in_map_features

2008-09-24 Thread Nick Barnes
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. ___

Re: [Talk-GB] not_in_map_features

2008-09-24 Thread Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Dave Stubbs
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

2008-09-24 Thread Steve Hill
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