[talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

[David Wales]

Why did he remove the bridge tag?

On 5 October 2019 8:16:35 pm AEST, Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/10/19 10:53 pm, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> 
>>
>https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-134914770
>
>> 
>
>Thanks for that. I hadn't realised there was yet another prioblem with 
>using the path tag: highway=path bicycle=designated is currently 
>rendered differently to highway=path bicycle=yes. As previously 
>discussed, in Australia the only difference between yes and designated 
>can be the cycleway being old enough for the bikes to have worn the 
>markings off. So we'd end up with a map that just tells us where the 
>signage is still OK.
>
>> the likes of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24377739 in 
>> Perth would also fit too.  
>
>Oh marvelous. Having edited the wiki page he's now editing the map to 
>match his new tagging policy:
>
>http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=24377739
>
>> the 1-liner descriptions you 
>> see at e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values 
>> reflect this use
>
>Classic OSM documentation...the one hand can't agree with the other.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-au mailing list
>Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20191006/6094630c/attachment.html>