<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV><FONT color=#000000>To the extent it's been documented, let's refer to the Wiki:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In this case, the photo of a "cycle track" is narrow like a path, with a stripe going up the middle.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, my turn to make subjective distinctions :) ...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'd mark something a "highway=cycleway, cycleway=track" if a seperate path is primarily used by bicycles, and is used as a regular transportation artery. In other word - paths going through town that people bicycle commute on - Guadalupe River Trail, Los Gatos Creek Trail, Highway 237 trail - would be marked this way. Walking paths through parks, mountain bike trails up in the mountains - thoses would be paths. At least, that's how I'd make the distinctions. I can't think of any "bicycle paths" where pedestrians aren't allowed, and don't legally have the right of way.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think it's important to not let the current rendering schemes of the normal mapnik style or cyclemap dictate these distinctions. Rendering styles can be changed in minutes; data takes ages to modify. The data should be focused on describing the condition on the ground.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(Having said that, I think I'll remove the "forward" setting on many of the elements I had marked up as a "type=route, route=bicycle, network=lcn" relations, when the direction is implied, and it's seperate carriageways on a boulevard. Cyclemap rendered last night, and it makes it look like one-way roads if you zoom out.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A lot of these distinctions are easily arguable. The feature wiki should be fleshed out a bit with example photos, and best practices definitions. In Potlatch, if you draw a line with no attributes, and click on the little "attribute icon" that changes from a car, to a pedestrian, to a bike, etc, and go for the "cycle track" preset, it creates a combination of "highway=cycleway" and "cycleway=track". combination. The ready presence of this combination is why I've tended to use it often - presets are a way of getting people to enter data in a standard way. Perhaps we could request some extensions to the potlatch presets as a way to encourage standard practices.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-Alan</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Karl Newman <siliconfiend@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> David Carmean <dlc@halibut.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> atwood@cs.stanford.edu; talk-us@openstreetmap.org<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:35:24 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways<BR></FONT><BR>On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:15 AM, David Carmean <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:dlc@halibut.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:dlc@halibut.com">dlc@halibut.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 05:27:44PM -0800, Scott Atwood wrote:<BR><BR>...<BR><BR>> Multi-Use Paths (a.k.a. Class I). This one is also pretty easy. I tag<BR>> these as {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}. However, one wrinkle<BR>> is that these MUPs sometimes have have sections with an on-street alignment.<BR>> In that case, I added a relation to the entire MUP, both the off-street<BR>> trail portions, and the on-street alignments, that was tagged like<BR>> {route=bicycle, type=route, name=_name_of_the_MUP_}. I intentionally left<BR>> off the network tag from the relation, since this isn't part of a formal<BR>> route network per se, but if anything, it would be {network=lcn}<BR><BR>How did you decide upon this scheme? I've been working on sections of the<BR>SF Bay
Trail, some of which even allow horses. I've been tagging these<BR>primarily as {highway=path|track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes|no,<BR>surface=paved|gravel|dirt}. The choice of "path" or "track" has been a little<BR>imprecise.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>Your scheme seems better. A multi-use path is exactly what highway=path was intended for. It's not primarily for any mode of transportation, but pedestrians, bicycles and sometimes horses are all allowed. As for path vs. track, I think of track as something like a fire road or similar, something that is occasionally used by wheeled vehicles, usually with special permission.<BR><BR>Karl<BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>