[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
osm at inbox.org
Wed Jan 6 13:51:00 GMT 2010
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway,
> >> foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated,
> >> bicycle=designated.
> 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
Seems to me the wiki is inconsistent about how to treat
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples says that
such "A path designated for pedestrians and cyclists equally." can be tagged
as highway=cycleway, foot=designated OR highway=path, foot=designated,
bicycle=designated. I assume, for the sake of logical consistency, that
highway=footway, bicycle=designated would also be allowed.
> These definitions feet well for countries where the
> "mainly/exclusively" role is easy to determin which seems to be the
> case in Europe.
Those signs I showed you are European signs, right? Is the wiki wrong?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Should we be deprecating one or the other, or doing
> mass updates or something?
I don't think it's ugly at all. I think it finally makes sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging