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

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Fri Dec 11 12:28:01 GMT 2009

Dave F. wrote:
> Roy Wallace wrote:
>> 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).
>> 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?
>> The current wiki definition of highway=cycleway is "mainly or
>> exclusively for bicycles". This I cannot be sure of from the aerial
>> imagery, nor can I of anything to do with the law. What to do...
> Hi Roy
> The answer is No, don't tag it as a cycleway if you don't that it's a 
> cycleway.
> Map what you see on the ground. If there's no sign or you don't have a 
> document stating it as one, don't tag it.
> Remember with the cycleway tag we're stating it's legal status as a 
> highway, not the suitability to use it as one (eg surface, width, 
> steepness etc)
> Cheers
> Dave F.
I should clarify that any document should be non copyrighted. So not OS 
maps in the UK, or equivalent in Oz.

Dave F.

More information about the Tagging mailing list