[talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path

edodd at billiau.net edodd at billiau.net
Sat Aug 8 03:44:12 BST 2009


>
> --- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gah... don't tag for the renderer.
>
> We're not tagging for the renderer, we're tagging to describe something,
> perhaps this is just a case of needing a width and to render accordingly,
> however you need something more than just highway=path to describe what is
> currently being described.
>
>> What is it about the path that makes it better for cycling
>> in your opinion?
>
> I don't cycle much so it isn't going to do much for me either way, but the
> previous poster had a point about showing paths that were more for bike
> riders because they were wider.
>
>
The seafront area in Cairns has a mixture of cycle only paths / shared use
paths / pedestrian paths through a single big park area
So something that rendered those differently would be ideal. I know we
should not "tag for the renderer".

So a cyclist path is wider, has no steps and has probably a maximum gradient.
It should also have a dip in the kerb where it meets / crosses the road.
A wheelchair suitable path would have even less gradient, and again have
no steps, but might be narrower. I haven't read the Australian standards
there, so someone else who has a better idea should chime in.





More information about the Talk-au mailing list