[Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a39a at gmx.com>

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:41 AM Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berthoux at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU <poggyasz at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
> >>>
> >>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54
> percent of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
> >>> Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated'
> tag. Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
> >>
> >>
> >> I don’t understand, for me a mixed cycleway has no sense, if it’s mixed
> well it is a path segregated or not.
> >
> >
> > It's common in North America.  Sometimes it even switches between a path
> and a cycleway.  Galloping Goose Cycleway and Trail in Canada's a fantastic
> example of both.
> >
> > 1. Cycleway that allows pedestrians:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail#/media/File:Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail,_Saanich,_British_Columbia,_Canada_17.jpg
>
> Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path.
>

Primary purpose as indicated by the presence of dedicated lanes and signage
specifically for cyclists.  Busier parts also include ◊ 🚲 ↑ and signs
reminding pedestrians to walk near the edge.  Oklahoma and Oregon do
something similar but often omit the "bike lane" markings and instead ask
pedestrians to walk on the right half, preferably near the edge.

Similar to tertiary roads that allow pedestrians but lack sidewalks.  It
still has lanes, pedestrians are allowed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200210/d7a9baab/attachment.htm>