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

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com
Sat Dec 12 08:44:48 GMT 2009

There's an awful lot of cycleways already, so your definition has to
recognise that. The argument in Europe is whether cycleways are by default
shared (UK / Dutch norm), or by default single-use (the German position).
There's no real argument over the physical (minimal obstructions for road
bikes / no cars), though there is argument over what should be done about
paths that are nearly but not quite.

Regardless of what the wiki says, 99% of the use of "path" is for rough
paths (in forests and fields). The shared use stuff was invented by the
Germans for their single-use model, and isn't widely used for that, even by


On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > So here's my (proposed) scheme:
> >
> > highway=path (deprecate footway and cycleway!!)
> Any support for
> path=foot
> path=cycle
> path=horse
> path being distinct from highway (more work needed on this)
> highway for motorised vehicles who may (?!) share
> path not for the fourwheeled vehicles at all - too narrow or prohibited or
> unrealistic as it contains a flight of steps
> i'm looking at cycleway as being 'designed for cycle use' with regard to
> width, surface, gradient
> subgroups (the australian) exclusive, shared and separated
> all of which would be designated with a bicycle sign
> *designed and designated to qualify for cycleway*
> other ways which are used by cyclists and pedestrians
> path=foot bicycle=yes
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091212/1ad415e3/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list