[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Thu Jan 7 04:23:16 GMT 2010

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de> wrote:

> With cycleway it is mainly for bike with foot tolerated, so cycleway is
> the equivalent of bike=designated, foot=yes.

Ok. To be absolutely clear: in Australia "mainly for bike with foot
tolerated" does not exist. Also, "exclusively for bike" practically doesn't
exist. There is only:
1) Exclusively for pedestrians, and signed as such.
2) Generally for pedestrians, but you can probably ride a bike on it.
3) Designated for pedestrians and cyclists, with no particular priority.
4) (Rarely) Designated for cyclists exclusively, usually with a pedestrian
path nearby.
5) (And a few other cases involving horses and whatnot).

How would you encode this with default access restrictions?

> But anyhow, it seems the monthly foot/bike/path discussion is on. So I'd
> invite you to check the point of views and discussions of previous
> instances and maybe contribute some to the summary page.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
Good idea.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100107/f6ccfba1/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list