Hi RobJN, thank you for your help with pages Protected resource and Protected culture but they weren't yet ready for a formal proposal. I'll keep you informed about any progress. --Tago 01:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks great. I agree that names are much better that class numbers. --RobJN 23:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
UK "mapping priorities"
You might want to delete this one too: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Secondary_Priorities SomeoneElse 09:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I like the tabs. Good work!
- I was trying to think of a way of labelling them as 'wiki' related ( Talk:Wiki/Tabs )
- - Harry Wood 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi RobJN, I want to restart the discussion in order to get a decision. I would be happy to have your comment again. Here's an overview again:
Hello, I write to you because you are part of the Wiki Team. I would like to establish a navigation concept for this wiki, lead by use cases. I wrote an example main page and an example navigation page (for the use case 'contribute map data'). In January, I wrote a correspendent proposal on Talk:Wiki_organisation, with some but not much feedback. I would be happy if you could add your feedback in order to decide either to refuse the proposal or to proceed. In the latter case I will incorporate all feedback, write the two missing navigation pages ('about' and 'use') and finally I would like to change the main page. Best wishes, --Cantho (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Now I proposed to apply the proposed changes to the main page. Your feedback/ vote is welcome. If you want to respond but don't have the time right now, please give a notice about when you think you can respond. Have a nice day --Cantho (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
beneath beside cycleways
if there is a footway
beneath beside a cycleway, either both roadside or indpendent from any road,
mostly it is tagged highway=cyclway + bicycle=designated(for advisory cycletracks in Germany often (*=yes) + foot=designated + segregated=yes, or all the same with highway=path, hiding its function from some renderers (*).
Some time ago, suggested in a discussion page to tag
- on separately drawn roadside cycletracks highway=cyclway + sidewalk=right (mostly in the continent) or sidewalk=left (mostly in UK, IRL etc.)
- on independent cycleways highway=cyclway + footway=right or *=left, for independent couples of cycleway and footway it is the only possibility to note their geographic correlation.
After there had been no answer for some time, I entered this siggestion carefully ("not established but not forbidden") in the instruction articles.
(*) I think it can be called mapping for the renderer, as to hide something from a map that is designed to show it, is just the same as to inforce the presentation of something in a map that is designed not to show it.--Ulamm (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I get what you mean! Can you please let me know which instruction article you added the suggestion to. As for "sidewalk", it is my understanding that this is used for roads where there is only mapped a single line for the road. sidewalk=right suggests that there is a sidewalk (footpath/cyclepath) on the left side of the road only (according to the direction the road is "drawn" in OpenStreetMap). It has nothing to do with "UK, IRL etc". --RobJN (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Up to now that tag has only been used for roads, I know.
- But I cannot see any reason not to use it for cycleways if there is a footway beneath a cycleway.
- I have not seen any sidewalk tagged with a road rendered, but if a renderer shows sidewalks tagged with a road, why shouldn't it also show sidewalks tagged with cycleways.
- If the cycleway is far away from any road, it is merely a car-free kind of a road.
- Normally (for me), carriageway, cycleway and footway are placed in that layout that the cycleway is between carriageway and footway. If a roadside cycleway is drawn as a separate line, I consider it quite logical to tag the footway as sidewalk=* to the cycleway, instead of calling it a part of the cycleway (which is done by highway=cycleway + foot=designated + segregated=yes).
- My question is, "do you see any logical reason, not to do so?"
- If highway=cycleway + sidewalk=* is tagged, and if the nominal direction of the cycleway is that one of the real traffic direction of the neighbouring side of the carriageway (or with dual carriageway of the neighbouring carriageway), with right hand traffic the sidewalk ought to be on the right side of the cycleway, and with left hand traffic on its left side. (that is no question)--Ulamm (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- To answer your question (assuming you mean "beside" instead of "beneath"): Yes, I guess you could do that. It would only add a little bit of information (which side of the segregated cycleway the pedestrians should walk on) but I suppose it would be fine to tag like that. I personally won't be adding the tag as I don't map many cyclepaths, and in the UK I don't think there is any rule that says a pedestrian must walk in the pedestrian part of the cyclepath (and the seperation only tends to be a white painted line). --RobJN (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- A sidewalk is a sidewalk, it doesn't matter if there is also a cycletrack on the same side of the road.
- The first lines of the artivle Sidewalks don't mention cycletracks, but that doesn't mean that they forbid the use on cycletrack waylines.
- Maybe the writer has not thought of roadside cycletracks, nor of cycletracks with adjacent footways far away from a road.
- But that is no ban.
- The rules of OSM are developed amog free people. There is a lot of space, but no space for irrational tabus.
- Last not least: Many tags are not yet understood by evaluating programs, but highway=cycleway + sidewalk=right is understood by pedestrian routing, the router leads pedestrians on cycletracks with that tag.--Ulamm (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Saw the Garmin/Geko series page has been removed, see here for the last version.
I think that is not a good idea, yes, the Geko is discontinued but that can be marked as such, I do not see why the page should be deleted, it can be helpful to people still owning this device incl. myself.
- Hi Emvee. I've restored the page on your request. Please note however that out of date content can be misleading to others. I have therefore added a note at the top to say it is discontinued. --RobJN (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)