[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 12:00:10 GMT 2010


On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> No, a highway=footway, bicycle=designated is not the same as
> highway=cycleway, foot=designated. If you just try to understand the
> wiki definitions and not over-interpret them, you see that cycleway is
> mainly/exclusively for bicycles where pedestrians might be allowed or
> tolerated (depending of the country) and a footway is
> mainly/exclusively for pedestrians where bicycles might be allowed or
> tolerated.
> These definitions feet well for countries where the
> "mainly/exclusively" role is easy to determin which seems to be the
> case in Europe. If it is not possible in Australia (or US), then
> create you Australian:Map Features page like the 33 other countries
> and write you own refinement of the tag definitions.
>
>
Ok, so having created an entry for Australia (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia),
now does the above rule apply? That is, in Australia, according to the rules
I've written, is "highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated"
equivalent to "highway=cycleway"?

I'll start a separate thread on the AU list where we can debate the access
restrictions.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100106/09711a61/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list