[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
rwelty at averillpark.net
Wed Jan 6 00:11:05 GMT 2010
On 1/5/10 6:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net
> <mailto: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?
it's very bicycle focused.
within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just
been called bike paths
that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike
Path here in Albany
has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. Likewise, the Pinellas
Trail in the St. Pete
Florida area is officially described as a multi-use trail for the cases
where it using old railway
rather accurately describes the intended official usage pattern of this
class of path. i much
prefer it to anything cobbed together around highway=cycleway, which is
where the official policy for the trail is quite symmetric.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging