[Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

Nop ekkehart at gmx.de
Fri Dec 11 08:37:07 GMT 2009


Am 11.12.2009 08:44, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> If I trace (from aerial imagery) a path that I'm pretty sure would be
> great to ride on, and that appears to have been made nice and wide for
> cyclists, could/should I tag this as highway=cycleway? I know that
> pedestrians are probably welcome to walk on it as well (in Australia,
> no one is going to kick a pedestrian off a bikeway like the one I am
> referring to).

Well, here we go again with the footway/cycleway confusion. Currently, 
there is no helpful answer to your question.

The wiki definition is fuzzy: "mainly or exclusively for bicycles"

Some people concentrate on the "for bicycles" part and would say that if 
you don't know anything about the intended use of the way, you shouldn't 
tag it as a cycleway.

Some people concentrate on the "mainly" part and would say "Yes, go 
ahead if it looks like it could be a cycleway".

And then we usually start a two-week discussion on the matter without 
any result. :-)

> Could/should I add an additional tag to clarify that I really don't
> know the legal status/designation/whatever of the path? If yes, what
> should that additional tag be?

An additional tag or Fixme will not help, as it is ingored by tools and 
renderers and your message is lost on the way to the user.

My personal opinion is: Don't tag what you just assume. For all you 
know, the way could also be a footway, an unpaved minor road or a track. 
So I would either research it some more or just tag it as "road" for 
unknown usage.

But you'll probably find a supporting answer for _any_ alternative. :-)


More information about the Tagging mailing list