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

Peter Childs pchilds at bcs.org
Tue Jan 5 11:43:46 GMT 2010


2010/1/5 Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de>:
> Hi!
>
> Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de
>> <mailto:ekkehart at gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>>     Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
>>     avoid.
>>
>> I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways
>> is ridiculous :)
>
> Ridiculous? You mean just as ridiculous as speed limits, one-ways or
> traffic lights? :-)
>
> It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it.
>
>

Legal or not we still need to sort out the difference between
path/footpath/cycleway/bridleway I can't say its clear.

The whole highway tag is a mess, even the lines between the road types
cause too many arguments than is really good.

I would suggest that cycles need a separate tag ie cycle=yes and
highways where the tag is missing should have reasonable defaults. I
would also do the same for pedestrians.

That way the highway tag becomes a tag that is based on "Judgement"
even if that "Judgement" has a set of rules so we are consistent. If
you think a cycle way is a cycle way then tag it as one, but also
support your decision with other tags. If you don't and someone wants
to argue with your judgement then fine. I'm sure the list is more than
happy to arbitrate should it turn into a tagging war. But at the end
of the day its a Judgement call what ever the rules for the judgement
are based on.


Peter.




More information about the Tagging mailing list