<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I've written each of my answers on top of an answered post.<div><br><div><div>Am 23.12.2014 um 09:17 schrieb <a href="mailto:tagging-request@openstreetmap.org">tagging-request@openstreetmap.org</a>:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √<br> cycletracks) (fly)<br> 2. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √<br> cycletracks) (715371)<br> 3. Re: Date of survey (Marc Gemis)<br> 4. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √<br> cycletracks) (Mateusz Konieczny)<br> 5. Re: Date of survey (althio forum)<br> 6. Re: Date of survey (Jean-Marc Liotier)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div></blockquote><div><div><div><div><div>For roadline-tagged cycletracks, that is a good idea.</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div>Nevertheless, I hope we get a tagging scheme that is available for roadline-tagged and for separately drawn cycletracks almost in the same way.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"></blockquote></div></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Message: 1<br>Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:49:24 +0100<br>From: fly <<a href="mailto:lowflight66@googlemail.com">lowflight66@googlemail.com</a>><br>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs.<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>optional<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>cycletracks)<br>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:54989FF4.2070400@googlemail.com">54989FF4.2070400@googlemail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is</div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>cycleway=track.<br><br>Now we have two solutions:<br><br>1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track<br>2. add a new key like bicycle_track=*<br><br>My two cents<br><br>fly<br><br>Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert:<br><blockquote type="cite">The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">bicycle=designated/yes.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Lamm<___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_<<a href="mailto:ulamm.brem@t-online.de">mailto:ulamm.brem@t-online.de</a>>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hi all,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">cycleway=optional.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Now I hope for your comments.<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br></div></blockquote>Make a better suggestion that describes the feature in the same quality of relaibility and of slim tagging!</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Message: 2<br>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:47:53 +0100<br>From: 715371 <<a href="mailto:osmu715371@gmx.de">osmu715371@gmx.de</a>><br>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs.<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>optional<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>cycletracks)<br>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:5498ADA9.7050305@gmx.de">5498ADA9.7050305@gmx.de</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15<br><br>Am 22.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Ulrich Lamm:<br><blockquote type="cite">I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional.<br></blockquote><br>I am still against this tag as I mentioned several times.<br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br></div></blockquote>That's an interesting idea.</div><div>Nevertheless it ought to be possible to record the basic features of obligation and direction without separate waylines.</div><div>It is known that I like separately drawn cycletracks – on main roads and on crucial links of the cycle traffic network.</div><div>But in Bremen we have hundreds of kms of cycletracks in residential streets that even I don't like to draw separately :) <br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Message: 4<br>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:17:41 +0100<br>From: Mateusz Konieczny <<a href="mailto:matkoniecz@gmail.com">matkoniecz@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs.<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>optional<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>cycletracks)<br>Message-ID:<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><<a href="mailto:CALDvra5obHgPHar_UCORo3dRteLXxRrKe9EC0RHEFciVR2ES4Q@mail.gmail.com">CALDvra5obHgPHar_UCORo3dRteLXxRrKe9EC0RHEFciVR2ES4Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>"cycleway=track"<br><br>I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates<br>some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details.<br><br>In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road,<br>width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous.<br><br>Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is<br>nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way -<br>sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes).<br><br>These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way<br>(with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially<br>geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags.<br><br>At least this is my experience from tagging cycleway<br>data in Kraków and using this data to render a map of bicycle<br>related infrastructure.<br><br><br>2014-12-22 23:49 GMT+01:00 fly <<a href="mailto:lowflight66@googlemail.com">lowflight66@googlemail.com</a>>:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">cycleway=track.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Now we have two solutions:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2. add a new key like bicycle_track=*<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">My two cents<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">fly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bicycle=designated/yes.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">sing.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Lamm<___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_<<a href="mailto:ulamm.brem@t-online.de">mailto:ulamm.brem@t-online.de</a>>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hi all,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">cycleway=optional.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Now I hope for your comments.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tagging mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141223/e91e5d6a/attachment-0001.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141223/e91e5d6a/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br><blockquote type="cite">-------- next part --------------</blockquote>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141223/58f3fcd0/attachment.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141223/58f3fcd0/attachment.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Subject: Digest Footer<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Tagging mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>End of Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 68<br>***************************************<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>