Hi, These tagging issues always make me uncomfortable :)
Against "use_sidepath" in this case: - it's a trunk road, so no cycling anyway (Wouter) - the cycle path can be seen as just a path that happens to be near the R4; it doesn't -really- have a relation with the road itself (escada on Riot) - the confusion with the part that DOES have a cycle path shouldn't happen; that shouldn't be a trunk road! (Wouter) In favour of the use_sidepath: - it clearly shows there's an alternative - there's several roads mapped as trunk in Belgium that do have a cycle path. Should we change all of them? And if we change our minds (or someone else just changes things again), then the cycling info might suddenly be useful again - it makes it slightly easier to understand the situation when mapping Since there is no clear opposition to use use_sidepath in this case, I think I'll change it to that. Joost Op do 9 apr. 2020 om 20:35 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet < pieterv...@posteo.net>: > Hey everyone, > > We are doing a lot of cycle route planning. 'use_sidepath' is a very clear > hint to us and interpreted as 'don't use', in order to force the cyclist > over the cyclepath just next to it. So please, do add them! > > Mvg, Pieter > > On 09.04.20 12:27, Jo wrote: > > Since both the highway and the cycleway are separate (mostly parallel) > 'entities' in OSM, I think it does make sense to use bicycle=use_sidepath. > For routing purposes, it's probably not needed, while editing in JOSM and > for highlighting using MapCSS it is handy to have the tags directly on the > objects they apply to. > > Jo > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:00 PM Wouter Hamelinck < > wouter.hameli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> All three are correct in my opinion. Tbh, I've never really understood >> the use of use_sidepath. The only case where it contains really helpful >> information for me is when that alternative is not mapped. But then there >> is a more efficient solution... >> But I don't really have anything for or against any of the options. >> >> The third option is correct, but is a little uninformative, especially >>> since you actually ARE allowed to cycle on some parts of this same R4 >>> >> >> Isn't the first question here if they should be trunk if you are allowed >> to cycle? >> >> wouter >> -- >> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei." >> - Thor Heyerdahl >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing > listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > -- > Met vriendelijke groeten, > Pieter Vander Vennet > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
