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

Alex Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Tue Jan 5 22:02:59 GMT 2010

On 01/05/2010 03:05 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer <hawke-jojDulvOGOmQvBXZIOnqxg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> 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
> ...
>> 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.
> Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For "suitability"
> (whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes.

In point of fact I would do neither, because I don’t see the need to
point out particularly suitable biking routes that aren’t officially
designated bike routes.  Any way of doing so would be far too subjective
for my tastes.  But if I really felt a strong need to apply a tag for
some reason, it would be bicycle=yes.

-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/c7d2d1a3/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Tagging mailing list