2009/3/23 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) :
> Richard Mann wrote:
>
> Ways in OSM - at least as I've been told - are assumed to include any
> pavements/cycleways there may be to the side of the road (both in-lane
> and on-sidewalk), but not more segregated stuff. At least that's the
> pattern I've b
Richard Mann wrote:
> I'd conceived "highway=cycleway" meaning that the way was wide enough that
> pedestrians didn't need to use it (or there was an adjacent route for
> pedestrians). I think this is how it is in widespread use in the Netherlands
> / Germany.
Not sure quite what you mean here - a
I'd conceived "highway=cycleway" meaning that the way was wide enough that
pedestrians didn't need to use it (or there was an adjacent route for
pedestrians). I think this is how it is in widespread use in the Netherlands
/ Germany.
That doesn't work as well in the UK context, where we mostly have
Richard Mann wrote:
> I'm aware that there's a school of thought that says there should be a lot
> fewer highway tags, with further details in other tags. Can we not rehearse
> that debate (please).
>
> I'm assuming the lower change option of keeping the diversity of tags (and
> suggesting the add
Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Ed Loach
> wrote:
>
>> So if you have a shared use cycle/footpath where the bicycle and
>> people are above each other white on a blue sign I'd say that
>> highway=cycleway, foot=designated, cycle=designated and
>> highway=footway, foot=design
I wrote:
> > So if you have a shared use cycle/footpath where the bicycle
> and
> > people are above each other white on a blue sign I'd say that
> > highway=cycleway, foot=designated, cycle=designated and
> > highway=footway, foot=designated, cycle=designated are
> equivalent,
> > and the only di
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Ed Loach wrote:
> So if you have a shared use cycle/footpath where the bicycle and
> people are above each other white on a blue sign I'd say that
> highway=cycleway, foot=designated, cycle=designated and
> highway=footway, foot=designated, cycle=designated are eq
I'm aware that there's a school of thought that says there should be a lot
fewer highway tags, with further details in other tags. Can we not rehearse
that debate (please).
I'm assuming the lower change option of keeping the diversity of tags (and
suggesting the addition of a new one between cycle
2009/3/19 Alex Mauer :
> Simon Ward wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>> Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every
>>> single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just
>>> a tad impractical...
>>
>> Oh, there
Simon Ward wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every
>> single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just
>> a tad impractical...
>
> Oh, there are only 20‐odd million. Pi
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every
> single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just
> a tad impractical...
Oh, there are only 20‐odd million. Piece of cake ;)
Simon
--
A
Just an idea, practical doesn't come into it ;->
But if "we've always done it that way" wins out every time then the maps
we produce probably aren't going to be as useful as they could be.
Kevin
Tom Hughes wrote:
> Kevin Peat wrote:
>> Richard Mann wrote:
>>> As a general principle, I think Ke
Kevin Peat wrote:
> Richard Mann wrote:
>> As a general principle, I think Key:highway should do most of the work.
>> It should concentrate on describing the physical nature of the way...
>
> +1 on this...I also think highway should just describe the physical way
> so probably just:
>
> highway
Richard Mann wrote:
> As a general principle, I think Key:highway should do most of the work.
> It should concentrate on describing the physical nature of the way...
+1 on this...I also think highway should just describe the physical way
so probably just:
highway=path|track|road
With the rest
On 19 Mar 2009, at 16:32, Ed Loach wrote:
>> highway=path has no such assumptions.
>
> I'm not sure that any of the highway= values have assumed
> permissions. If you tag something as a footway in JOSM it defaults
> to adding both highway=footway and foot=yes (or at least I think it
> did in a re
> highway=path has no such assumptions.
I'm not sure that any of the highway= values have assumed
permissions. If you tag something as a footway in JOSM it defaults
to adding both highway=footway and foot=yes (or at least I think it
did in a recent build).
So if you have a shared use cycle/footpa
Richard Mann wrote:
> Path/footway/cycleway/bridleway/track isn’t really descriptive enough, and
> come laden with assumptions about cycle access (in particular) that
> currently need to be reviewed when tagging and rendering.
highway=path has no such assumptions.
highway=track is totally irrelev
I’ve been trying to work out how OSM can be used to record and display the
cycle networks in Oxford. I can get most of the way with the standard
tagging in Map Features, but run up a few situations where the tagging
doesn’t fit the reality. One of these is the mishmash of tagging rules for
footways
18 matches
Mail list logo
