[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2010/1/6 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so
>> again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path
>> suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway.
>
>
> I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable
> than average. Much more suitable than average, if you like.
>
> Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have
> to think about how to express it more clearly. I'm not trying to turn OSM
> into a bike project - I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of
> cycleway that people can agree on and that is useful.
>


in Germany we have a very simple rule: if there is one of the signs
(examples here):
http://www.hamburg.de/image/293720/verkehrszeichen-fahrradweg-bildqu.jpg
http://www.wilfo.com/blog/archives/fahrrad_weg.jpg
http://www.auto-und-verkehr.de/uploads/RTEmagicC_zeichen240_fahrradweg.gif.gif

it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple and
easy to apply. Alternatively you can use path and additional tags (see
wiki). I don't get your problem.

Btw: I do go by bike, almost everytime I go somewhere, and OSM is already a
kind of bike project in some point of view, but as a cyclist it is still
important to me if a way is a dedicated cycleway (different rules apply,
e.g. you generally legally _have_ to take it by bike if you go where it
goes, pedestrians can't take it), or not.

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100106/856aa6bc/attachment.html>