[Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 17 20:24:15 GMT 2009
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tag what you can actually see. And
> where I live, that usually does not include municipial regulations.
> Whether a path is meant for cyclists or just for pedestrians, is
> something I decide from the path and what's around it, not from a
> daily rush to the city hall to spit through meters of official
> documents. If it's two meters wide, and the curves are rounded rather
> than sharp, I call it a cycleway. If it ends at a pavement alongside a
> cycleway, and nothing has been done to smoothen the step that exists
> from cycleway to pavement at that point, I call it a footway.
I pretty much agree with what you wrote, but you took two relatively easy
cases. If you take a look at
do you agree with those tag suggestions? Even those are mostly easy
cases, though http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Gravel_path-3m.jpgand
The gravel path seems to me like it's "meant for cyclists", at least if you
include "meant for cyclists and pedestrians". Of course, maybe I just don't
know anything about bicycling.
The "highway path motor vehicle no" seems to fall under your definition of
cycleway (no curves, 2.5 meters wide, paved), though I'm not sure, and I'm
not sure if I'd call it one, because it's right next to a roadway, which I'd
assume is a better path for bicycling than the sidewalk beside it. In this
case I'd probably go with footway, or possibly path if the roadway next to
it is not wide enough for bicycles to travel safely (it's hard to tell).
This one I think is the hardest. I can see an argument for all three tags.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging