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

Nop ekkehart at gmx.de
Wed Jan 6 13:10:59 GMT 2010


Am 06.01.2010 07:15, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net
> The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport:
> anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not
> vice versa.
> Anyway, with the realisation that cycleway is actually treated the same
> as highway=path,bicycle=designated (I thought this was just a proposal,
> I didn't realise it actually worked), everything gets simpler.

No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path 
proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it 
differently. Their argumentation is like this:
- "designated" means there is a sign
- in my country, when there is a sign, the way is exclusive for cycles
- cycleway means pedestrains are allowed, but if there is a sign, they 
are not, so it cannot be the same


More information about the Tagging mailing list