[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 03:01:51 GMT 2010
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com>wrote:
> it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple
> and easy to apply.
Yeah, it's just not useful in many countries - like Australia. Bike-only
paths are almost non-existent. There are lots of shared use paths, and lots
of unlabelled paths. I basically want the shared use paths to be tagged as
cycleways (because that's the function they serve), and *some* of the
unlabelled paths to be tagged as cycleways.
> Alternatively you can use path and additional tags (see wiki). I don't get
> your problem.
Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path" very
differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking track with
> 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.
Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way to
get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case, it's
the construction of the path, its location, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging