[Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Sat Dec 19 05:59:03 GMT 2009


On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Roads are roads, rivers are rivers...but what the hell *is* the difference
>> between a bike path and a footpath?
>>
>
> I'm not sure you can even say "roads are roads".  What's the difference
> between a road and a foot/bike path?
>

Roads are car width wider and can be reached from the public road network
without crossing any kerbs, gates, or sections narrower than car width, and
almost invariably feature at least one or two traffic signs.

There are a few ambiguous situations. I recently visited a couple of bike
paths in my area, and discovered that some of them, when you look really
closely, they're actually roads, not bike paths:

http://osm.org/go/uG4GgO60D--

Here are some more:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-37.854371&lon=144.972703&zoom=20

(Incorrectly tagged atm as footways - not really sure what to make of them).

But anyway, these situations are really rare. Bikepath/footway ambiguity is
extremely common.



>
> What do you think about the way
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.75758&lon=-73.98522&zoom=17&layers=B000FTFis tagged and rendered?
>

Broadway? Sadly, I was there a few weeks before it became pedestrianised. I
think I'd map it out as an "area=yes highway=pedestrian". Dunno much about
it though.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091219/e0e92a44/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list