[OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
mikh43 at googlemail.com
Fri May 1 12:01:46 BST 2009
In the UK the term 'bridleway' tends to be confined to either (a) public
bridleways - where the term has a legally defined meaning, or (b) permissive
bridleways, usually detectable from signage.
I would tag the former as highway=bridleway, horse=yes, bicycle=yes (default
in English law), foot=yes, designation=public_bridleway plus any appropriate
surface= or tracktype= .
I would tag the second as highway=track, horse=permissive - with no
designation= tag and again surface= and/or tracktype= as appropriate.
Others may see it differently ...
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org]
Sent: 30 April 2009 22:54
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote:
>> If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't
>> you tag them both as designated?
>> highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway
>> +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted)
> I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use
> 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles
> in mind and I prefer using "path" for the more 'raw', usually unpaved
> paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not
> designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there.
Could someone clarify the difference between path and bridleway?
AFAICT, the only obvious difference is path is access=no, foot=yes,
bicycle=yes, horse=yes, whereas the bridleway is only access=no, foot=yes,
horse=yes. The former is commonly a former railroad, and is not paved
(though is usually graded and surfaced in peat), the latter tends to be in
yuppie neighborhoods around major cities (like around the fringes of Los
Angeles County where the rich go pretend to be cowboy riding in a manicured
bridleway next to a boulevard...).
More information about the talk