[Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 7 02:46:17 GMT 2009


On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard <mok at bioxray.dk> wrote:

> I'd map it separate from the road & tag it as highway=cycleway & leave
>> it as that.
>> It makes cycleway=track redundant:
>>
>
>
> We use this in several cases, however, we have so many cycleways here, that
> in cities it becomes unmanagable to use separate ways. I am willing to
> explain this in depth, but I don't want to introduce that discussion in this
> thread.
>

Not sure I understand. When the cycleway is mapped entirely separate from
the road, you mark it highway=cycleway. When it's physically separate, but
mapped just by tagging the road, you mark it cycleway=track. When it's
physically on the road with no barrier, you mark it cycleway=lane.

Are you saying that that's what you're doing, and it's not enough? Or am I
misunderstanding?

It is the feeling of the danish OSM community that we need to be able to tag
> cycleways that are part of the road construct, separated with a curbstone
> like seen in the two pictures below.
>

So, you're saying that you want a finer distinction of cycleway=track, to
distinguish paths that are physically at road level, and those that are at
pedestrian level?

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091207/d644f5ab/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list