[talk-au] Railtrails

[Evan Sebire]

I'm just still not sure if we should categorise paths so they display 
correctly with the current limitations of a rendering algorithm.
When reading the main wiki 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway ) I understand the 
definition of cycleway to mean bicycle only paths or paths created 
specifically for bicycles.  So rail-trails don't really fall into this 
category.
http://www.railtrails.org.au/trails/ 

Railtrails were not designed predominantly for bicycles, and most sections 
near urban centres would predominantly be used by pedestrians.  I lived near a 
disused track and saw it develop into a rail-trail.

I personally don't care as I often ride a bike, but I think the map should be 
consistant and the only way to achieve this is to use path and then describe 
the properties.  Opencyclemap / openhikingmap / openhorsemap etc can then 
render the appropriate map.

 Here is an example of why it is best to use the path tag for shared use paths
http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=-37.81133383418217&lon=145.39752250272988&zoom=15&layers=B0000F000F
track 10 is really a fire-access track (DSE) with the majority of traffic 
being foot.  This has been categorised as a bike path because I assume it was 
surveyed that way.

regards,

Evan


On Wednesday 05 Aug 2009 22:34:07 jhen at talk21.com wrote:
> Noted.
>
> As far as I'm aware, all railtrails are designed predominantly for bicycle
> use.  This is a reflection of both the distances usually involved and the
> users they attract.  I do see the occasional walker on a railtrail, and
> these, horse riders and wheelchair users are also encouraged to use them.
>
> Another advantage of highway=cycleway is that this causes the cycleway to
> be immediately obvious to those likely to use the facility (cyclists).  Not
> only do they appear distinctively blue on the main osm.org map, but they
> show on the specific Garmin cycle maps available at
> http://www.osmaustralia.org/garmincycle.php
>
> John
>
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Evan Sebire <evan at sebire.org> wrote:
> I would have thought that the tag highway=path would be more appropriate.
> After that follow what is in the wiki guidelines.  I don't think we should
> necessarily appeal to the majority/minority on a particular path, but
> describe its properties.
> I was labelling many hiking paths as footway but have now seen it is better
> to use path and add properties such as horse, bicycle and sac_scale.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale