[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".


More information about the Tagging mailing list