On Dec 10, 2012 1:25 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote
No. We should be mapping physical objects...
There are plenty of non-physical objects mapped in OSM but I don't see the
point of adding road schemes to the db before contracts are awarded. The
South Devon Link Road near me was in
Kevin Peat wrote:
No. We should be mapping physical objects...
There are plenty of non-physical objects mapped in OSM but I don't see the point
of adding road schemes to the db before contracts are awarded. The South Devon
Link Road near me was in the planning stage for more than 25 years
There are lots of roads where I map which have Unfit for motors signs
(blue/white advisory) but are normal maintained roads in limited but
regular use. Typically they are narrowish, with lots of bends and often
steep. In general anything up to maybe the size of a skip lorry can get
through (though
motor_vehicl http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehiclee=no
should suffice I would have thought?
On 10 December 2012 13:36, cotswolds mapper osmcotswo...@gmail.com wrote:
There are lots of roads where I map which have Unfit for motors signs
(blue/white advisory) but are normal
from the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features
motor_vehicl http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehiclee=no
Access permission for any motorized vehicle
these routes do have access permission, but are signed as unsuitable/unfit
which is more advisory
Best Wishes
Peter
motor_vehicle=no says that motor vehicles aren't legally allowed along the
road. That's not the case as Aidan has pointed out that these are the
blue-backed advisory signs. If going with the commonly-used tags then I
think that, whilst it's still technically not right,
motor_vehicle=destination
On 10 December 2012 15:11, Gregory Williams
greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk wrote:
I think that changing the class of the road to service isn’t the best way of
recording the data. These roads will quite often legally be an unclassified
highway and changing the class away from that just isn’t
On 10/12/2012 08:18, Kevin Peat wrote:
On Dec 10, 2012 1:25 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote
No. We should be mapping physical objects...
There are plenty of non-physical objects mapped in OSM
As primary tags?
Dave F.
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
Instead I've used highway=track based on the physical
appearance, and then added designation=
unclassified_highway to record the legal classification.
Agreed: I often do something similar.
In this case, though, I'm not entirely comfortable with highway=service
9 matches
Mail list logo
