Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none as the default. Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan

Re: [Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4062586422 I have retagged this from barrier=flood_gate to barrier=gate, gate=flood_gate which seems more hierarchical and simpler to follow. I have added access=yes to the node. http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/88830172 This seemed a strange one when I was

Re: [Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017, Michael Booth wrote: > Seems to be missing from OSRM's list of barrier features that cars can > be routed through: > https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/c2727f202975414ffdaf9bfb8a4dd54615bcb9d0/features/car/barrier.feature > > Might be worth opening an

Re: [Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

Seems to be missing from OSRM's list of barrier features that cars can be routed through: https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/c2727f202975414ffdaf9bfb8a4dd54615bcb9d0/features/car/barrier.feature Might be worth opening an issue on their github about the problem. On 08/03/2017

Re: [Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

Thank you Adam, I can't even guess what that one is. Phil (trigpoint) On Wednesday, 8 March 2017, Adam Snape wrote: > Also this barrier http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/88830172 > > Regards, > > Adam > > On 8 March 2017 at 21:51, Philip Barnes wrote: > > > Thank you

Re: [Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

Also this barrier http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/88830172 Regards, Adam On 8 March 2017 at 21:51, Philip Barnes wrote: > Thank you Franz > > I will try adding an access=yes tag. > > Phil (trigpoint) > > On Wednesday, 8 March 2017, Franz v. Gordon wrote: > > Hello

Re: [Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

Thank you Franz I will try adding an access=yes tag. Phil (trigpoint) On Wednesday, 8 March 2017, Franz v. Gordon wrote: > Hello Phil, > > I found this barrier=flood_gate [1] at the exit of the southbound > tunnel, which may be an unknown barrier with no access for anyone. Mabe > an

[Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

This may be a question for OSRM but I thought I would start locally. A problem, i have come across after a new mapper tried to fix it, is that OSRM will not route through the southbound tunnel. http://map.project-osrm.org/debug/#17.52/51.51198/-0.00679 I cannot spot any problem with the

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Amey Birmingham Highway Assets Import

Try this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Conflator I'd like to know if they use this, and how they get on with it. Rob On 8 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Brian Prangle" wrote: > Hi Rob > > I've got the offer of help from BCU to create something - but if there's >

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Amey Birmingham Highway Assets Import

Hi Rob I've got the offer of help from BCU to create something - but if there's sommething already coded then they can just tweak that. Regards Brian On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Brian, > > As mentioned in person, there is a (python?)

[Talk-GB] State of the Map 2017: Japan

It may be a little further than last year, but I'm super excited about State of the Map 2017 being hosted by Japan. We're a little low on talks at the moment, you can propose a session before April: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/02/16/propose-your-session-to-state-of-the-map-2017/ Need

Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:41 +, SK53 wrote: > Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their > particular situation. Absolutely, doing this could make many PROW inaccessible. Phil (trigpoint) > As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the > data which

Re: [Talk-GB] 'permanent' mobile caterers

Fair point On 26/02/2017 13:23, Craig Wallace wrote: For most of these vans, probably better to tag them as fast food, not cafes. Plus tag as takeaway=only if it doesn't have any seating. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Hi I think anything subjective shouldn't be in OSM. What maybe considered dangerous by you maybe perfectly acceptable to someone who's trying to win a Darwin award. That the highway is mapped as an 'A' class dual carriageway should give a clear enough indication of conditions. foot=* is

Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Hmm. Had forgotten that I had asked that. Regards, Stuart Reynolds for traveline south east & anglia On 8 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Dan S > wrote: Hi foot=no would definitely be inappropriate! It would mean not permitted. This is

Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their particular situation. As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the data which allows these routing situations to be better handled. The current tags which allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a sensible

Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Hi foot=no would definitely be inappropriate! It would mean not permitted. This is basically the same as the "Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes" question that you asked in December, and the responses to that are relevant here. Best Dan 2017-03-08 11:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds

[Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Amey Birmingham Highway Assets Import

Brian, As mentioned in person, there is a (python?) script called OSM Conflate that might help here. I am without my laptop until Monday but will look then. Rob On 3 Mar 2017 10:06 a.m., "Brian Prangle" wrote: > Hi everyone > > Following on from our discussions at last