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

[Alex Mauer]

On 01/06/2010 07:10 AM, Nop wrote:
> 
> 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

So they should use access=no in addition to bicycle=designated.  Seems
simple enough to me.  This is also why access=official was created, even
though it’s redundant.

-Alex Mauer “hawke”

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100106/0edbe61b/attachment.pgp>