OpenStreetMap 标志 OpenStreetMap

变更集 时间 评论
151286819 约1年前

Oh cool! I saw some signs in Ermsdorf and Medernach last week and thought I should follow them :-)

133862930 超过2年前

Hello.

I found some of your edits where you use designated instead of destination:
motor_vehicle = designated means this sign: https://www.iamexpat.de/sites/default/files/sitefiles_2021-03/federal-highway-entrance.png (which doesn't exist in Luxembourg): C,2 sign (red circle: means restricted)
By setting designated, you invite motorists to drive there.

Thank you for being careful. :-)

131245821 超过2年前

LOL @ the comment "this is farmland, even if kewl cycles through it". I did my survey and 7 months later I was about to delete that imaginary track :-)

124920222 超过2年前

Did they forbid bicycle access on this track? 😭

100335500 超过4年前

Hello,
Sorry for the late reply; I didn't get the notifications in my Inbox. And sorry to cause trouble, but let me explain why:
- I've been exploring a lot (cycled 29000 km in 2020) and many times my experience was ruined by some incomplete mapping data:
1. there are many ways which have more than one role, and depending of your point of view they are one type of highway or another. For example, osm.org/way/23925793; screenshots here: https://g.kewl.lu/index/category/529-catchall <- it's considered as a driveway to an equestrian centre for some people, but since it's used for farming it's also a paved track, and additionally it's part of a bicycle route (which is called locally cycleway and also leads to confusion); (I excluded the fact that this way is also part of a hiking route). When visually looking at a map, service roads do not appear unless we zoom in, and if you want to include them on a larger map it becomes cluttered and we often can't see anything. The idea behind is to render a map that includes service roads that are also suitable for low mobility transit.
2. some ways that are in fact private properties but not tagged as such; in average every second time I went exploring I ended up in front of a gate) and I'm trying to sort out which ones I haven't been verified. Unless we could import private tags to a way I don't see how to do it and continue exploring and verifying ways. So I thought of testing with service roads which are part of cycling routes; I've done most of them but I can't guarantee that someone hasn't changed the route compared to the one onsite.
3. Some of the ways on cycling routes are restricted to motorised traffic and are usually tagged with access=destination and also many were missing bicycle=yes (and foot=yes); therefore bike routing avoids the cycling route unless a waypoint is set on it.
That's the reason I did this changeset. Sorry for the annoyance but otherwise I have no idea how I could improve the mapping quality. Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
Tristan

95181992 超过4年前

Is the park (osm.org/way/880422579) a park or just someone's garden?

86532092 约5年前

Looks OK

65350565 超过6年前

Oh yes! thanks for the reminder ;-)

46912817 超过8年前

A little bit, but it goes to the stargazing point I mentioned last weekend, so it's worth the effort ;-)