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

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree - from the wiki: highway=path is "a route open to the
> public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more
> wheels". I think highway=path is perfect. It's plain English.

Yeah, the /examples subpage is great, too. Serious question: does
anyone use the tag this way? My concern is that renderers generally
just look at the key (path) and render it as though it was a dirt path
(dotted brown line). Whereas you're essentially saying they should
look at all the tags together, and possibly render as a footway, a
cycleway, etc. And that might be asking too much.

> Sure, go for it (I never map "suitability", but if you must... :P)

Well, I don't map "kids_area", so ner.

> Hmm. I see your point, but I don't like your definition. If anything,
> bicycle=yes/no should keep its current definition, i.e., equivalent to
> bicycle:legal=yes/no (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access).

That's not how it's used, and you know it. :)

> If you want to invent a tag that refers to "the mapper's opinion" (!),
> then I would recommend using bicycle:Steve's_opinion=yes. :P

Go jump.

Steve