osm at inbox.org
Tue Dec 22 17:18:32 GMT 2009
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
> Stephen Hope wrote:
> > 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).
> Then doesn't that make it a cycleway? If you're legally allowed to take
> a bike down there then, in the eyes of OSM, it's a cycleway
That definition just doesn't work for places where you're legally allowed to
take a bike pretty much anywhere. It also asks for way too much from
mappers for them to know the legality of riding a bicycle on a path which is
primarily used by pedestrians.
Also, what about ways on privately owned land? Are they always cycleways,
because the owner can ride his bike on them? Are they never cycleways,
because there's no legal right of way to ride a bicycle on them? Or do we
have to judge whether or not we think the owner is likely to object to
someone riding a bicycle?
It also doesn't work at all, in any jurisdiction I can imagine, for
privately owned ways. Who's the "you" in "If you're legally allowed to"?
Question to all:
> Is there a tag for 'sharp bend'?
> There's one for steep incline, so there should be one for going around a
Whether or not there is a sharp bend is determined by the geometry of the
Steep incline needs to be tagged only because way geometry is
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging