[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 06:04:29 GMT 2010
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>wrote:
> On 1/5/10 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path"
> > very differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking
> > track with unmade surface".
> this shows a segment of the Mohawk Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. i haven't yet
> switched it all over to use
> so the left side is still tagged
> it renders the same in mapnik and osmarender for both tagging
> approaches. so what renderers are challenged
> by this, exactly?
Oh, cool! Sorry for the mistake. It must be the use of "bicycle=designated"
- I think I've used "bicycle=yes" in the past, and just seen the generic
"highway=path" rendering. That's quite interesting... So, the only cases
where disagreement remains would be where a path is not *designated* a bike
path, but acts/looks like one. Hmm.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging