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

Peteris Krisjanis pecisk at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 12:43:57 GMT 2010


2010/1/6 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is an old page because designation and default access is an old
>> topic and there is no "black and white" answer. In some countries,
>> when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed for pedestrians
>> and contributors do not want to be forced to add a foot=no because in
>> some other countries it is "obviously" allowed. It's like asking the
>> whole world to add a bicycle=no with highway=motorway because it is
>> allowed in some US motorways.
>
> But isn't the point of the table to allow an Australian to tag
> "highway=cycleway" and to mean something different from when a German does
> it? And the point is that the makers of renderers and routers can use this
> table? Presumably we should provide it in XML format or something to make
> this easier.
>
> Or is this the dream, but it's actually not used? What am I missing?
>
>
>>
>> It would be very helpful to see an Australian entry in this page, of
>> course.
>>

Jesus, what this dead horse has done to you?

Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's
allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in
real life lot of people will use footpaths for cycling, and some
footpaths would be suitible for cycling, but will lack official
marking. Well, bad luck. We can't have everything as in real life on
OSM. We have to draw a line somewhere. In fact, if I see a footpath
who looks really supictious as usable for cycling too, I will note
this with note=* tag and maybe later I will check it out for sure. If
not, someone else propably will do.

Cheers,
Peter.




More information about the Tagging mailing list