[Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

Masi Master masi-master at gmx.de
Sat Dec 14 14:18:30 UTC 2013


Yes, it will be included in the new proposal.
PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way:
http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662&point=52.509385%2C13.270111&vehicle=BIKE&locale=nl


Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com>:

> I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have
> to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal
> again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this
> tagging is.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee <piewie32 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> @ Martin
>>
>> I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not  
>> expect we
>> had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been
>> some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST  
>> way
>> has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing  
>> is a
>> difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be  
>> mapped as
>> a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better  
>> routing
>> is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from  "bicycle
>> access" as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) )  it is  
>> easier to
>> explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with  
>> explicit
>> ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that.... it still  
>> is
>> difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a
>> try.
>>
>> Cheers
>> PeeWee32
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/13 Pee Wee <piewie32 at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended.  Voting results:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)
>>>>
>>>> No:  11
>>>>
>>>> Abstain:  3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject
>>>> the current one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast
>>> majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be  
>>> tagged,
>>> either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible  
>>> btw., if
>>> there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they
>>> existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or
>>> destination on the road, what is not working and has already been
>>> discussed).
>>>
>>> As these are the reasons for opposing this, a "better proposal" very
>>> likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no
>>> solution will be agreed on).
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmap.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>


--



More information about the Tagging mailing list