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

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Sat Dec 12 15:42:39 GMT 2009

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote:
> > I'm asking what you think the definition within the wiki ought to be.
>  Liz
> > gave one, "a way which is free of bicycle obstructions".  I don't think
> it
> > was a good one - even if you ignore ways which allow motor vehicle
> traffic,
> > and ways which prohibit bicycles, that definition still would include far
> > too many areas where bicycle traffic is only a small fraction compared to
> > pedestrian traffic.
> that's a pedestrian's point of view.
> i was considering a cyclist's point of view (i'm not that fond of walking)

Please explain to me what this has to do with you walking.  1) Just because
it's not called a "cycleway" doesn't mean you can't ride a bike on it.  2)
There are streets right next to the sidewalk, which are better for bicycle
riding anyway.

> currently i'm looking at the Australian legal definitions because i'm sure
> the
> traffic engineers have answered these questions for us already.

Maybe if by "us" you mean Australians.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091212/4ecbd69e/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list