[Tagging] bicycle=no

Roy Wallace waldo000000 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 00:57:51 GMT 2009

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In Australia, we ARE tagging paths generally with "unknown (or no)
>> legal status". Should we *guess* the legal status and use
>> footway/cycleway etc., or use highway=path + surface + width?
> Or ignore the legal status entirely and map on the basis of common practice.

Firstly, you'd have to create a new tag, say,
"common_practice=bicycle;foot". Bicycle=yes/no is already in use and
it refers to legal status. (see

> Why was "legal status" chosen as the most important attribute to map? Surely
> what matters most is whether or not you should use a certain path,
> regardless of what the "legal status" is.

I don't know why it was chosen, but that is currently what "yes/no"
refers to. For obvious reasons, it's not a good idea to use a
well-established tag with two different meanings simultaneously.

Secondly, "whether or not you should use a certain path" is not
clearly defined, and is not verifiable. What exactly do you mean by
"should"? Does this refer to people in wheelchairs, or not? In the
rain, or not? Etc., Etc., Etc.

I agree with your position that legal status is not really what we
should mapping. But you need to come up with *verifiable*

More information about the Tagging mailing list