Yes, thank you, Minh. I forgot to mention the importance of using the
cycle_network tag, as it can both disambiguate routes which might be
named/numbered the same or similarly AND coalesce them together into a coherent
collection of routes which are clearly "all members of a single network."
A
On 2019-07-11 17:27, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thanks for the nice summary. I have one minor issue to raise a question
about:
stevea writes:
As for rail trails, very nice work, Richard! Rail trails are usually
classified as local (lcn) if they are for cyclists, although some are
sponsored at a sta
Phil!
I know it seems "like it just makes sense" to combine Maryland and DC
relations, but there are rather deliberate reasons to keep these separate. One
is state-level, the other is federal-level (is one), but the "state at a time
for route relations" is a fairly well-established method of t
These are based off of Lambertus's work here:
http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl
If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel
free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The
odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by
asking on the talk-us@ l
Thanks for the nice summary. I have one minor issue to raise a question
about:
stevea writes:
> As for rail trails, very nice work, Richard! Rail trails are usually
> classified as local (lcn) if they are for cyclists, although some are
> sponsored at a state-level: these are properly tagged r
> Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails -
>> it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated
>> with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even
>> relatively trivial stuff like
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/re
* Richard Fairhurst [2019-07-11 01:56 -0700]:
> It would be good to have a distinct C&O Canal Trail relation over and
> above the USBRS 50 relation, for example.
You mean aside from these?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1392951
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9773990
I suppos
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails -
> it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated
> with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even
> relatively trivial stuff like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/
8 matches
Mail list logo
