[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 68

Tue Dec 23 10:25:31 UTC 2014

I've written each of my answers on top of an answered post.

Am 23.12.2014 um 09:17 schrieb tagging-request at openstreetmap.org:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √
>      cycletracks) (fly)
>   2. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √
>      cycletracks) (715371)
>   3. Re: Date of survey (Marc Gemis)
>   4. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √
>      cycletracks) (Mateusz Konieczny)
>   5. Re: Date of survey (althio forum)
>   6. Re: Date of survey (Jean-Marc Liotier)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
For roadline-tagged cycletracks, that is a good idea.
Nevertheless, I hope we get a tagging scheme that is available for roadline-tagged and for separately drawn cycletracks almost in the same way.

> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:49:24 +0100
> From: fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs.
> 	optional	cycletracks)
> Message-ID: <54989FF4.2070400 at googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is

> cycleway=track.
> 
> Now we have two solutions:
> 
> 1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track
> 2. add a new key like bicycle_track=*
> 
> My two cents
> 
> fly
> 
> Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert:
>> The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways
>> isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between
>> bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand
>> bicycle=designated/yes.
>> 
>> In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like
>> bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an
>> access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike
>> cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must
>> ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing.
>> 
>> OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich
>> Lamm<___ulamm.brem at t-online.de_<mailto:ulamm.brem at t-online.de>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and
>> 
>>> cycleway=optional.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Now I hope for your comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
Make a better suggestion that describes the feature in the same quality of relaibility and of slim tagging!

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141223/a8e16d56/attachment-0001.html>