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

Steve Bennett 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
bike paths.

> 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 mailing list