[talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path

Roy Wallace waldo000000 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 8 00:40:17 BST 2009


On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM, <jhen at talk21.com> wrote:
> I have a strong feeling that this would be unacceptable.  We need to know
> about different types of path and road.  Just knowing that they're suitable
> for bicycles or for motor traffic isn't enough.  Such dumbing-down of the
> data to meet a lowest common denominator is something I believe we should be
> avoiding like the plague.

I'm pretty sure no one was suggesting this (i.e. removing
information). It's the way the information in entered in tags that is
being discussed. The fact is that we currently have
highway=cycleway;foot=yes AND highway=footway;cycle=yes, and it is
difficult to choose which is appropriate for a particular shared-use
path.

We also ALREADY have highway=path, which is for "non-specific or
shared-use" paths. This makes the above two tagging combinations
redundant.

I would therefore suggest at least changing the highway=cycleway and
highway=footway descriptions from "mainly/exclusively" to
"exclusively" - and preferably getting rid of them altogether.

> All paths marked are shared paths, but one side of the creek is much more suitable for cycling than the other.  And this is because of the significantly different physical properties of the paths themselves.

Please describe the "significantly different physical properties", and
see if they can be described by adding tags to a highway=path.




More information about the Talk-au mailing list