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

Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com
Mon Dec 14 09:26:22 GMT 2009


Mike Harris
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org 
> [mailto:tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
> Sent: 14 December 2009 09:15
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without 
> explicit knowledge of the law?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I think I am having a deja-vu. The very reason people added 
> the highway=path proposal (almost exactly 2 years ago) was to 
> "provide a value for a nonspecific or multi-use path." 
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Path).
> 
Although I have a lot of sympathy for the issues currently being explored
(again?!) and some sympathy for the solutions, I would not at this stage
support the re-invention of a meaning for highway=path that - although
perhaps reflecting the purpose for which it was originally intended (cf.
Frederik's message - apparently a 'non-specific or multiuse path') differs
from the way it seems to being used 90% of the time (an ill-defined and not
legally designated hiking path 'not otherwise specified' and probably
unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian). I find that the practical
usage is usseful (a catch-all for 'not otherwise specified') and the
apparent original usage ambiguous ('non-specific' aand 'multiuse' can be
widely and differently interpreted - including from each other).

> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





More information about the Tagging mailing list