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

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 06:14:45 GMT 2009


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony (and others), what did you think of my proposal from two days ago?:
>
> highway=path (deprecate footway and cycleway!!)
> *:legal=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:legal=* - for those who want to map the law)
> *:signed=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:signed=* - for those who want to map
> what's on the ground)
> *:suitable=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:signed=* - for those who want to map
> suitability)
> designation=* (official classification, i.e. read from a legal document)

The big problem here is that it is completely at odds with what
renderers support, and what the rest of the world is/has been doing.
What's worse, by using "path", you're taking over a tag currently used
primarily to indicate unpaved hiking paths.

But it's a start.

How about:

highway=shared_use (or mup [multi-use path] or shared_path)
The point is that these paths generally feature some level of bicycle
and pedestrian use.

"bicycle:legal=yes/no" - I guess, are there just these two values? Speed limits?

"bicycle:signed=yes/no" - seems ok. Although you have the burden of
verifying whether each section is signed. And if there's an entry
midway along a section that is signed at each end - is it really
"signed"? Petty matters though.

"bicycle:suitable=yes/no" - definitely want a sliding scale here.

"designation=*" - what kind of values do you have here?

I would still suggest that in addition to that, there would be:

bicycle=yes/no. If you want to map all the fine detail, do so. But
don't expect all software to process it all. Give them a hint with
this handy tag: "Given this mapper's unstated knowledge of the legal
and physical attributes of this path, this mapper's opinion is that
bicycles can use it".

Steve




More information about the Tagging mailing list