François Bronchart's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
150747291 | 12 months ago | Sorry for the confusion.
|
133104599 | about 2 years ago | I just checked the behaviours of the planner and they now take into account the staircase, so the pedestrian crossing is fixed IMO. I just made another slight modification to simplify further the pedestrian paths, that is to make the path 673052068 access=yes instead of access=private. Indeed, this short section is the public street between the road and the cycle path, before it becomes private (before the gate). |
133104599 | about 2 years ago | Hello, thank you for the review!
|
89519555 | over 4 years ago | I totally agree that tags should be sufficient. My problem might be that the apps I use do not allow this kind of POI search. Do you have any (android) app recommendation for that?
|
89519555 | over 4 years ago | I admit I haven't read this note and agree it is not the best if search is not robust to plural variation. Would you suggest to type "Bulle à verre" in the "description" field instead (or even "description:fr" ? |
83138544 | almost 5 years ago | Thanks for the clarification. The problem on this section was that previously the routing engines would generate a detour so that bikes would avoid this section. Checking on the tags, I think "bicycle=no" was set (which is incorrect in this case since this section is authorized for bikes just like the rest of the roundabout). According to your explanation, just removing this tag would have been enough instead of changing the "no" into "yes". Is it correct? |