On 03/09/2020 10:58, Gareth L wrote:
I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public
space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way.
Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that
also mangling tagging conventions. I
On 02/09/2020 22:37, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/09/2020 19:00, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
>> I don't know the area. but they look like the existing posts to me.
>> Has the cycle path been realigned around them to provide better vision
>> splays/ stopping room to motorists?
>>
>>
A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth
Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on
the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority".
In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access
tag and segregated=no
I suspect that the real clue is in the changeset tags:
resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags=10
So the iD validator has presumably claimed that the tagging of
those paths was "out of date" in some way and this was likely a
misguided attempt to fix that.
Of course that was likely based on
Hi there,
Unless there's a "history" to this I recommend that you assume good
intent. Seems Skyguy made an embarrassing mistake there.
Please also don't assume "tagging for the renderer" or "vandalism",
those two OSM curse words ;) the mapper explicitly stated their
intention in the changeset
I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public
space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way.
Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that
also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!
Gareth
> On 3
Rather than reverting, I restored access and left the top-level
highway=* tag alone.
I only noticed these changes when plotting a route in Komoot and
noticing that I needed to create/drag a lot of extra waypoints in order
to get the expected behaviour. Hopefully Komoot will behave responsibly
and
I think access=permissive could have unfortunate consequences for motor
vehicle routing, unless routers ignore highway=footway|cycleway anyway.
Some of these paths should probably have motor_vehicle=private added
(together with some gates and removable/rising bollards), as maintenance
and event
If iD really is prompting changing highway=cycleway->highway=footway
without preserving cycle access, we can expect to see cycle routing
becoming badly broken in a lot of places. Some of these edits were made
3 weeks ago and nothing like that appears to have been reported elsewhere.
There also
These changes should be reverted in my view.
But I would note that the default map on osm.org does a poor job of
communicating the difference between shared paths (like those in QEOP and
elsewhere) and dedicated cycle lanes. Both look like blue dashed lines. They
look indistinguishable. So
Hi,
On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive
I think that highway=cycleway
On 03/09/2020 10:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote:
>> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
>> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
>> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive +
I think highway should be reverted to cycleway. There's a
misunderstanding that highway=cycleway implies priority to bicycle
riders, when it actually relates just to the number of transport modes
which can use it. Bridleway equates to three modes: walkers, bikes & horses.
DaveF
On 03/09/2020
3 wrz 2020, 11:58 od o...@live.co.uk:
> Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that
> also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!
>
It would be bicycle tag, not access:bicycle___
Talk-GB mailing list
14 matches
Mail list logo