[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Nop ekkehart at gmx.de
Mon Jan 4 17:14:28 GMT 2010


Am 04.01.2010 13:42, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> Things that make a cycleway well suited:
> - good surface: smooth asphalt is better than compacted gravel
> - smoothness: few bumps such as tree roots or kerbs
> - gentle curves: few sharp turns
> - signs or legislation giving priority to bicycles
> - navigability: signs allowing a cyclist to follow the route for many kilometres
> A cycleway doesn't have to have all the above, but it should have most. We can perhaps argue about the minimum standard.

I think this is not an improvment, as it gives a list of highly 
subjective parameters, that different mappers will judge differently and 
that also fit to ways that are definitely no cycleways.

According to these hints, cyclists will tag even more minor roads, 
pedestrian ways and agricultural tracks as cycleways because the feel 
that they are suitable for cycling. And I feel that this is plainly wrong.


More information about the Tagging mailing list