[Tagging] bicycle=no

[Mike Harris]

... Unless you have access to non-copyright information on legal status and
this is reasonably available in the public domain in England and Wales ...
So I do add legal status BUT using a designation= tag so that it does not
get confused with highway=, surface=, tracktype= etc.

I would avoid highway=path so far as possible and give preference to
highway=footway / cycleway / track etc. unless the path on the ground was an
ill-defined informal track with unknown (or no) legal status. This provides
more information.

Mike Harris
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org 
> [mailto:tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Wallace
> Sent: 07 December 2009 21:48
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
> 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > Fortunately, you're not mapping for a router.  If there's no 
> > verifiable data, you shouldn't map anything at all.  I 
> guess "unknown" 
> > would also be acceptable, though.
> 
> I think this is an important point. It becomes a problem when 
> people try to map the *law*, because legal status is often 
> difficult to verify - e.g. you can't see it!
> 
> I tend to only map legal status when it is directly marked by 
> signage on the ground - at least you can see signs (i.e. 
> their existence is verifiable). So if there's a sign with a 
> bicycle on it and a "no pedestrians" sign, that should give 
> enough confidence to go with highway=cycleway, etc.
> 
> If there's no signage, stick with highway=path, surface=*, 
> width=* - these are verifiable without sifting through a law book.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging