[Tagging] bicycle=no

Ben Laenen benlaenen at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 11:57:17 GMT 2009

Steve Bennett 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. 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.
> (Hopefully I'll find some example where it's "illegal" to walk/ride
> somewhere, but everyone does it.)

Yeah, there's a path like that near where I live as well. A path which only 
allows pedestrians, but it provides a nice shortcut, and most people who make 
use of it are actually cyclists. Even though there's no way that you could get 
on the path and not know that cyclists aren't allowed.

And then I used that shortcut as well one day and at the end of it there was a 
police car waiting. I luckily didn't get fined, they just wanted to stop all 
cyclists that day and point it out to them, and say that they'd come back 
another day to actually impose fines.

It didn't really stop cyclists using that path, but it does show the reason 
why we're mapping the legal status of roads, and not what most people do.


More information about the Tagging mailing list