Ed Loach wrote:
>where there is a verge so narrow you can step across it without stepping on
>the grass.
Unless you're with a walker, a pram or a stroller, or in a wheelchair.
> or put arbitrary joining ways at intervals.
Only useful where there's a real connection anyway, i.e. a route
starts
Marc Gemis wrote:
> AFAIK the Fins are already adding all traffic signs, see [1]. The Dutch made
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Finland:Traffic_signs
In my experience collecting the signs exhaustively has revealed smaller and
bigger errors in osm data, and also in the signs (say,
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> the world is not black and white
This (or some other message) reminded of one other very accepted case
where the verifiability could be contested, but isn't. People do map
underground pipelines (water, drain, heat etc.), either interpolating
between manholes or
On Tue moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> If you go that route, there's no limit to how far back an old name can
> go. That'd mean that we should add, for example, all of [Dublin's old
> names][1] to the osm object, since they are well documented. It would
Reading any old document or fiction would
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference?
>
> Historical data should not be added and if present - removed.
If anyone can add descriptive attributes of present features on
present-in-osm objects, they shouldn't be deleted. A tag saying
"this
Dave F. wrote:
> A 'life story' is historical. Historical doesn't mean 'gone'.
Then that data shouldn't be 'gone' but just with a different key/tag,
especially as long as the not-gone object exists.
--
alv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
(I hadn't subscribed to this list, so the reply is to a seemingly
random message and not directly related to that)
I believe much of this recent discussion is happening because
there's a ... misconception that hasn't been addressed, and
the actual tags that have been mentioned suggest readers to
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I think this has to be done, and it can be done. We could invent a way
to flag stuff that we remove because it ceased to exist as such, and
The solution that works right now, even if it is a bit laborous
sometimes: first prepend all keys with was: or past:
(for
It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4
wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle
like a moped or a motorbike (or no
While that is often true, the criteria goes the other way:
- if the way is too narrow to fit a car (hey, my summer
car is only 1.48 m wide) or a
highway=cycleway ist zur Zeit lediglich als andere
Schreibweise für highway=path + bicycle=designated
anzusehen.
Beim Proposal für highway=path war das in die andere Richtung diskutiert.
Also nicht alle highway=cycleway Wege mit ein blauen Schild stehe (es gibt
schon viele Menge Wege die älter
Some places are mapped thoroughly enough that we're adding sidewalks,
and cycleways on the sidewalk (or Copenhagen style cycleways, as
they've been called on this list) as separate ways. Generally these
don't have a separate name. At least when the cycleway/footway
deviates away from the road,
Richard Mann wrote:
then yes they probably will get converted into tags on the road, just as
soon as that renders properly. Rendering gain trumps notional information
loss. The Danes are just ahead of the curve.
I think they have been too eager to discourage drawing the cycleways
separately. The
I think we've seen (several times) the different meanings given in
the wiki guidelines in different languages/ for different countries;
there's little to gain from discussing them over again _until_ someone
makes a proposal to clear the issue with well written explanations.
But I want to note
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the
German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are
having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk
on foot, I need
to know whether it is an unsigned
Roy Wallace wrote:
I have no idea what you would consider suitable for the common
cyclist. Please, at least write the criteria down.
Since it's the not signposted ways that are not evident and a common
cyclist is not looking for mountain bike trails, I'll try: shout if you
disagree.
Absolute
Lambert Carsten wrote:
sense. Even though the smaller road ends at the edge of the larger road
not the middle of the road.
Inside the crossing area the roads overlap, neither ends there - you're
on both roads. But you're not on the bridge that starts only several
meters away - or inches away if
Roy Wallace wrote:
Is tagging the primary users intended to use the way verifiable? If
not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
introduced into the wiki only in 2009, while footway and cycleway have
been
Shaun McDonald wrote:
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
Even so the on the ground rule and verifiability have not been on the wiki
for long. They have been the unwritten norms of the community since the
I'm all for referring to that verifiability where it comes
Quote Key:highway:
It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the importance
of the highway.
(Was until last week:)
... of the physical structure of the highway.
Either way, the highway tag itself should (IMO) convey they primary
description of the highway - the distinction
Nop wrote:
I think we should step back one step.
The discussion here seems about to fall victim to the same mechanisms
Trying to keep my comment general at first to find what are the needs:
what should be in the highway tag and what are local factors. This
turned into a stream of thoughts but
Rückeweg ist ein Begriff der Forstwirtschaft, heißt eigentlich nur,
dass die Bäume weit genug auseinander stehen, dass man mit Maschinen
durchkommt. Wenn wirklich Holzabfuhr stattfindet, können deren Spuren
zu Verwexlungen mit tracks führen, ansonsten wuchert's da vor
sichhin...
Und es
Radomir Cernoch wrote:
http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=60.18933lon=24.9642zoom=18
I do not
think that streets like Sturenkatu or Teollisuuskatu, nor any of
connected primary/secondary/tertiary form a zone. I would suggest to
define a zone as an area with predominantly uniform traffic
regulations.
(Habe nicht in vielen Jahren etwas so langes auf Deutsch gescrieben aber
muss jetzt versuchen...)
Was es nicht alles fuer verschiedene Interpretationen fuer designated
gibt. Wie schoen einfach und klar muss die OSM-Welt gewesen sein, als es
das Proposal fuer path noch nicht gegeben hat.
Are paths larger than footways?
Is it for paths required that any other vehicle/horse can use the path
otherwise it is a footway?
There is no defined physical difference between footway and path. The
difference is that footways are primarily or exclusively for use by foot
traffic, while
Hi,
The proposed feature for specifically acknowledgind a value of none
for the tag maxspeed has been in voting but has not been voted upon
15 times and is therefore re-introduced to this list.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/maxspeed_none
25 matches
Mail list logo
