<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Verdana;">As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for the tags. It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org showed shared-use paths explicitly. Perhaps as follows:-<br></div><ul><li style="font-family:Verdana;">highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as at present.<br></li><li style="font-family:Verdana;">highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at present.<br></li><li style="font-family:Verdana;">highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe blue long dash interspersed with red short dash)<br></li><li style="font-family:Verdana;">highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe red long dash interspersed with blue short dash)<br></li><li style="font-family:Verdana;">With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in parallel with red - the right way round if possible.<br></li></ul><div style="font-family:Verdana;">I think that would solve the issue here, and prevent a lot of anonymous notes.<br></div><div style="font-family:Verdana;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Verdana;">Anyone know off hand where/how to propose this? Or even willing to help on coding up a demo?<br></div><div style="font-family:Verdana;"><br></div><div id="sig98312048"><div class="signature">---<br></div><div class="signature"><a href="https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain">https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain</a><br></div><div class="signature"><a href="mailto:spiregrain_osm@ksglp.org.uk">spiregrain_osm@ksglp.org.uk</a><br></div></div><div style="font-family:Verdana;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Verdana;"><br></div><div>On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 12:24 PM, Thomas Jarvis wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style=""><div dir="ltr"><div>I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to it).<br></div><div>My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).<br></div><div>His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a well used cycle route. Both of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to reflect this.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask the community here to see what the consensus is.<br></div><div>I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole reason being because it renders differently.<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thank you,<br></div><div><div>-- <br></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><b><u>T</u></b>homas <b><u>J</u></b><br></div></div></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>Talk-GB mailing list<br></div><div><a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br></div><div><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Verdana;"><br></div></body></html>