I am American, and the concept of a toll cycleway is not one I have
encountered either.
On September 22, 2014 3:55:03 AM p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
Toll? I assume that means the same in US English as in UK English?
You really have to pay to use cycleways? How is the toll collected and
enforced?
Phil (trigpoint )
On Sun Sep 21 2014 23:36:04 GMT+0100 (BST), Paul Johnson wrote:
> Along with this, I really hope renderers start computing surface=* and
> toll=* values for ALL ways. I say this since "surface=asphalt,
> highway=cyclway" is an exceptionally rare combination in the midwestern US,
> but "highway=cycleway, surface=gravel, toll=yes" is not.
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Pee Wee <piewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > A renderer/router is perfectly capable of deciding what he thinks is
> > paved/unpaved. He can decide whether he calls gravel / fine_gravel paved or
> > unpaved. Do not leave the decision paved/unpaved up to the mapper. Map
> > what you see. As you may have guessed I prefer surface=asphalt over
> > surface=paved since the last one could mean that it is gravel.
> >
> > Cheers
> > PeeWee32
> >
> > 2014-09-21 2:49 GMT+02:00 David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>:
> >
> >>
> >> yes, agree strongly. Surface= is a good tag, provides important info but
> >> it is far too fine grained. Someone setting up a route cannot be
> >> expected to sift through all the possible values.
> >>
> >> Similarly, we may well have a chance to get the renderers to respect a
> >> clear, on/off tag like the proposed and show it on the maps too.
> >>
> >> I see no problem with both tags being used.
> >>
> >> I think sometimes we put too much detail in the database and risk making
> >> the data unusable because of that. Mention making the data usable, we
> >> see charges of "tagging for the renderer". But this is important, I have
> >> detailed life threatening issues resulting from unclear maps. This
> >> proposal will provide valuable, dare I say "usable" info for consumers !
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
> >> > Hello all,
> >> >
> >> > I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed
> >> > from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it.
> >> >
> >> > Idea
> >> >
> >> > I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and
> >> > probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved:
> >> > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values
> >> >
> >> > The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki
> >> > doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the
> >> > article about Key:surface.
> >> >
> >> > Rationale
> >> >
> >> > Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a
> >> > given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface
> >> > key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is
> >> > given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular
> >> > surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple
> >> > information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very
> >> > useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses
> >> > to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the
> >> > surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software
> >> > only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key
> >> > can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects)
> >> > navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that
> >> > describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software –
> >> > if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly
> >> > stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in
> >> > consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved.
> >> >
> >> > If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would
> >> > have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved
> >> > or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes,
> >> > so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in
> >> > general are paved.
> >> >
> >> > I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values
> >> > for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some
> >> > cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also,
> >> > the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly
> >> > surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the
> >> > information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values
> >> > are set for the surface key.
> >> >
> >> > I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would
> >> > encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to
> >> > implement support for it in their applications.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think about that?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Tomek
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Tagging mailing list
> >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
> > <http://www.openstreetmap.org>.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
>
--
Sent from my Jolla
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
