[Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledgeof the law?

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Mon Dec 14 14:47:05 GMT 2009


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Mike Harris <mikh43 at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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).


Well, first of all, what you describe would still be correctly labeled as a
"path".  However, I have to really doubt that 90% of ways tagged with path
are "probably unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian".  Maybe 90%
are unpaved, but unpaved does not mean "unsuitable for any traffic other
than pedestrian".  And there's already a tag for surface=paved/unpaved.
That's my problem with the current usage.  We shouldn't have a tag for
surface=unpaved and a second tag for highway=surface_probably_unpaved.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> highway=path for rough paths
> highway=footway for paved paths
>

Can someone at least write a bot to go around changing path to footway or
vice-versa if the surface=* doesn't match?  Or (and I know this is never
going to happen), put some code on the servers to disallow highway=path +
surface=paved and highway=footway + surface=unpaved?


> bicycle=yes if bikes are definitely allowed, and unlikely to be revoked
> bicycle=permissive if it looks like the land is private and someone could
> attempt to ban cycling in future
>

What about bicycle=no?  Is that the default?  If so, I have to object.  The
default needs to be bicycle=unknown, or else it needs to be jurisdiction
specific.

highway=cycleway only used for well-engineered & public/permanant cycle
> tracks (ie could you safely do 20kph on it)
>

This could work too, with perhaps a jurisdiction-specific definition only
for cycleway.  My only two (relatively small) problems are 1) something
needs to be done quickly about inconsistent data like bicycle=path +
surface=concrete/paved/asphalt/etc or bicycle=footway +
surface=grass/ground/sand/unpaved/etc, before it gets too out of hand.  And
2) you just can't make the default bicycle=no.

Oh yeah, and "rough" should be "unpaved".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091214/9f01cd90/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list