[Tagging] bicycle=no

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com
Wed Dec 9 10:10:35 GMT 2009

Steve - dip your toe in the Smoothness debate on the wiki, and recoil with
horror that people have devoted so much time to arguing over suitability

You can get a basic classification of physical attributes using the highway
tag (especially when you know that 99% of the use of "path" is for unpaved
footways). Something like bicycle:defacto probably allows you to record
informal access, if the bicycle (legal) tag is insufficient.


On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Ok, sure, being "easy" to tag is good, but you have to weigh it up
>> against the disadvantages, including not being directly verifiable.
> Personally, I find that a very small disadvantage.  By far and away the
> biggest problem with OSM data at the moment is lack of coverage. Let us all
> look forward to the day when the biggest problem is that some footpaths
> should have been tagged bike paths, or vice versa, because the definitions
> weren't 'verifiable' enough.
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091209/04ab4dda/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list