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

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Mon Dec 14 01:31:58 GMT 2009


On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> > What makes them "genuine bike paths", then?
>
> Bike signs. Painted bike symbols. Documentation to that effect.
>

Fair enough.  But in the absence of such conclusive evidence, then what?

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> Umm, "measured human activity" is a physical observation.
>
> A pretty bad one. I go and count 18 cyclists and 12 walkers. I tag it
> cycleway. You measure 15 walkers and 10 walkers. You tag it footway.
> Now what?
>

Now nothing.  What does it matter if the way is tagged as footway or
cycleway or path?  Some people like to get worked up about these things, but
according to the definitions I read, so long as you include bicycle=yes on a
footway which allows bicycle traffic, it really doesn't matter. Personally,
I'd have probably used highway=path if it's that evenly split.

If you've got a better proposal, write it down, put it up somewhere on the
wiki, and we'll vote on it.

I appreciate that you're trying to solve this.  I really do.  But until you
have a complete and consistent proposal, which is accepted by the majority
of the community, I'm sticking with making a judgementas best as I can.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091213/61ba0726/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list