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

Alex Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Tue Jan 5 17:34:31 GMT 2010


On 01/05/2010 06:29 AM, Nop wrote:

> The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-)
> 
> My point is: There is an important difference between
> - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
> - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling

But is it a physical difference, a legal difference, or something else?

IMO: If it’s a physical difference it should be a different highway tag.
 If it’s a legal/signage difference, it probably belongs in the access=*
series of tags.  Otherwise, it should probably be a totally separate tag.

Note that in some (possibly most) jurisdictions, a “real, official
cycleway” is not prohibited by law for others.

I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two
examples is most likely legal, and therefore:
highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.

-Alex Mauer “hawke”

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100105/39f11925/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Tagging mailing list