[Tagging] cycle hierarchy

Andre Engels andreengels at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 15:22:07 UTC 2013


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com>wrote:


> One of the first things you point out is that the "highway"-classification
> was a classification made for motorized vehicles, but this is not
> completely true, instead, it is the classification of the road network (and
> admittedly as of today roads are built mainly for motorized vehicles
> although they were already built also before the invention of the motor).
> Actually with a bit of local knowledge this classification can also be used
> to infer the suitability for other means of transport like bicycles or
> pedestrians.
>

How am I supposed to do that? The requirements for cyclists and motorized
vehicles are vastly different. Even stronger, the very fact that something
is a good long-distance route for motorists would often make it a worse
candidate for cyclists, but probably not with cycle tracks or cycle lanes.
Still that leaves us with a bunch of roads with cycle lanes, tertiary,
unclassified and residential roads and cycleways where local knowledge is
the only way to choose between them.

-- 
André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131002/da7accd7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list