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

[Richard Welty]

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
roadbeds.

highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated

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 
inherently asymmetric
where the official policy for the trail is quite symmetric.

richard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100105/6d55b9d7/attachment.html>