[talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path

[Evan Sebire]

This is exactly what is being discussed in the German forum.
I agree completely!
It would make it much simpler for everyone and for true cycleways use the tag 
cycleway=lane/track etc would be appropriate.

Even if there is not an international consensus changing this in the 
Australian wiki would be a good start.

Evan


On Friday 07 Aug 2009 13:52:14 Cameron wrote:
> My preference is for greater use of highway=path with it defaulting to
> foot=yes and then additional access tags relating to surface, access by
> bicycles, horses, etc. Basically I think anything which is not designed for
> a car should be a path.
>
> I would actually propose abolishing highway=footway and highway=cycleway
> but fear that could be met with disapproval. Certainly I think that any
> highway=cycleway;foot=yes or highway=footway;cycle=yes or
> highway=bridleway;foot=yes should be made into highway=path with
> appropriate tags.
>
> ~Cameron
>
> 2009/8/7 Evan Sebire <evan at sebire.org>
>
> > G'day,
> > I'm not saying don't use cycleway, but instead use it only for these
> > exclusive
> > paths.
> > Just choosing a specific tag because of the way it renders on the main
> > map is
> > not a good idea, this is why a variety of maps are appearing to please
> > specific groups and will improve with time.
> > Sorting out the rendering is another issue, first I think the data should
> > be
> > consistent, and the guidelines unbiased.
> >
> > >It seems that the status quo is "What do you think the primary purpose
> >
> > is?"
> > I think this logic is slowly changing, because it's much more useful if
> > someone knows they can/cannot use a path because they are on
> > foot/bike/horse.
> > If we continue to tag shared paths as cycleway it is much less useful
> > than knowing all the properties of a path.
> >
> > The best solution I think would be to use the path tag and then a bike
> > map could look for the cycle=yes tag and display it in green like the
> > http://www.informationfreeway.org map already does.
> > Deciding a paths primary use is problematic and it would be better to
> > describe
> > it purpose.  The best example here is the rail-trails, on Sundays you see
> > maybe 50% or more of traffic being cyclist but on weekdays it could be
> > less then 10%.  This obviously varies greatly depending on regions but is
> > just an
> > observation from the trails I know.
> >
> > If the guidelines are unbiased we will attract many more interest groups
> > to this great project, each having the option to display the map the way
> > they see
> > correct.
> >
> >
> > Evan
> >
> > On Friday 07 Aug 2009 12:41:52 Liz wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Ben Kelley wrote:
> > > > I think I know of only one exclusive cycleway.
> > >
> > > I can think of several
> > > the western side of the big coathanger
> > >
> > > There's a big one in Adelaide the Veloway
> > >
> > >
> > > and maybe a few in Canberra
> > >
> > > I foud by googling
> > > one on King street Sydney
> >
> > http://cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/AboutSydney/ParkingAndTransport/cycling/Cy
> >cl
> >
> > >ingInfrastructure.asp
> > >
> > >
> > > but the best offer comes from TAssie
> > > http://www.biketas.org.au/2001/SPOKE-2001-04.pdf
> > > Hobart CITY COUNCIL PLANS
> > > TRANSGLIDE 2000 ALONG
> > > INTERCITY CYCLEWAY.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk-au mailing list
> > > Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au