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

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Thu Jan 7 04:19:49 GMT 2010

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis <pecisk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's
> allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in

Heh, that makes about three people with very simple "takes" on the matter -
and they're all contradictory. The matter is "simple" to lots of people -
with different understandings each time.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: there is a clear difference between a
dirt path that bikes are allowed on, and a smooth, wide, obstacle free path
of compacted limestone that happens not to be signed with any bike signs.
That difference is worth encoding, and that's why "highway=footway
bicycle=yes" is not satisfactory to me at the moment, and why I'll continue
to (ab)use "highway=cycleway". My apologies for the dead horse though, I'm
happy to drop this at the moment, for want of anything more useful to add to
the conversation.

>I came across this problem too. Eventually I decided to just use
>highway=path, as that is all that can be confidently concluded from
>aerial photography. (leave the details for a later ground survey...)

I do that when it's unpaved, and I really have no idea if bikes are even
allowed or not. One I did today: http://osm.org/go/uGtPRKFLD-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100107/efd6be98/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list