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

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com
Tue Jan 5 23:56:05 GMT 2010


On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:

> highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
> highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.
>
Each to their own, but I'd prefer:
highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for those
officially signposted) and
highway=cycleway (for those that are not officially signposted but are
otherwise "just as good")

You don't really need the access=no (or foot=no) for the former; it's
distinctly rare that there's no route for pedestrians alongside. Using
bicycle=designated does not give the precision required (sorry Alex, I know
it's your pet scheme, but I don't think it works).

Ekkehart - other than the obvious pain of adding another tag to the legions
of official cycleways in Germany, is there any real problem with this
approach?

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100105/c90559e7/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list