[Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
stevagewp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 06:07:38 GMT 2009
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> Bike signs. Painted bike symbols. Documentation to that effect.
> Fair enough. But in the absence of such conclusive evidence, then what?
Then it's not a "genuine bike path", it's just a bike path. That's the
only distinction I'm making. A "genuine bike path" can be used by more
pedestrians than cyclists, which changes nothing. Same goes for normal
> 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.
Highway=path is something else entirely. No one really knows what,
though. But IMHO if something is borderline footway, and borderline
cycleway, it doesn't suddenly become something else entirely - that's
a bad solution.
> If you've got a better proposal, write it down, put it up somewhere on the
> wiki, and we'll vote on it.
Sure. Where? I'm confused by the number of different but overlapping
discussions, are we talking about just an Australian proposal atm? I
was pretty happy with what someone (Liz?) put up, with one minor
More information about the Tagging