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

Nop ekkehart at gmx.de
Tue Jan 5 09:40:55 GMT 2010


Hi!

Am 05.01.2010 03:51, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> The important bit is to point out useful
> information to cyclists - and labelling every single pedestrian path as
> a cycleway would clearly be wrong.

This is exactly why I think it is a bad thing. It is too strongly biased 
towards a cyclists perspective and would "claim" anything that is 
suitable for cycling as a cycleway.

I am not a cyclist. I drive cars, I like to hike and I ride horses. Real 
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to 
avoid. Therefore I disapprove of biased tagging. The current definition 
is already too fuzzy and has resulted in chaos. An even more biased 
approach is a change for the worse.

The tags in the database should be as neutral as possible so you can 
derive all sorts of maps from them. The bias towards some preferred 
interpretation like cycling should be introduced in the map style, not 
in the data.

So if you want to directly point out useful information for cyclists, 
you should introduce a new tag for cyclists, but leave the highway tags 
alone.

bye
	Nop




More information about the Tagging mailing list