mikh43 at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 22 10:07:23 GMT 2009
... And just to make the point that there are 'different strokes for
different folks' in England it is against the law to ride a bicycle on a
public footpath (except in the rare cases where a legal exception has been
made). This is regardless of whether or not it is feasible to cycle ... And,
as it is a default, public footpaths do not normally have any signage to
indicate 'no cycling' ... I'm not making any recommendation here about
tagging ... Just saying that geographical differences do exist and it may be
useful for any tagging system to allow for this ...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hope
> Sent: 22 December 2009 00:32
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
> 2009/12/22 Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>:
> > I'm gonna have to disagree... if it allows both pedestrians and
> > bicycles, that would be a cycleway in most cases.
> Around me, that is not the case. The law where I live is
> that anybody is allowed to cycle on any footpath, unless it
> is otherwise signed, or there is an adjacent cycle-lane or
> track (and even there, you only have to use the cycle track
> "if convenient" - ie, it's not blocked).
> And I've only seen a very few paths that are signed no
> bicycles, or pedestrian only.
> So (almost) every footpath in my area allows both pedestrians
> and bicycles. However, some of the footpaths are definitely
> not cycleways. They are very narrow, have sharp turns or
> gates, steps, steep gutters, etc. Just because it's legal to
> cycle on them, doesn't mean they were designed for it. I
> wouldn't mark any of these ways as cycleway, though I might
> add bicycle=yes if it is possible (though not necessarily
> advisable) to take a bike through them.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging