[talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path

[Ashley Kyd]

I agree with the post below.

I know that in Brisbane, cycleways almost exclusively allow pedestrian
traffic as well. There's only one hundred-metre stretch of cycleway I
know of that's been signed foot=no. For this reason I always presumed
(perhaps wrongly) that the default status of a cycleway should be
foot=yes, anyway.

I don't think it's appropriate to remove the cycleway designation just
because a way also allows pedestrian traffic. It would knock out the 150
km Moreton Bay Cycleway, just because it interleaves built up areas and
in some areas is used primarily by people on foot. I'm really not
convinced that's a good idea, for renderer *or* semantics to tag a
government-designated cycleway as a path with bike access.

I understand there may be fringe cases, but it's not usually *that*
difficult to determine if a way is a footway or cycleway is it?

Cheers,
Ash.

On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:08 +0000, jhen at talk21.com wrote:
> I believe the present system works better than the simplified system
> proposed.
> 
> With a system of shared paths, the simplified system would result in
> all paths being treated the same.  They would become indiscernible.
> 
> This link provides a good example: http://osm.org/go/uNP_xlQv
> 
> 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.
> 
> We should not be prepared to see this valuable information lost.
> 
> By parity of reasoning, we could remove all ambiguity in deciding
> between the different types of road (motorway or trunk, trunk or
> primary, tertiary or unclassified, etc) by having just one type:
> motor_traffic=yes.  Problem solved in one fell swoop.
> 
> 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.
> 
> John
> 
> --- On Fri, 7/8/09, Cameron <osm-mailing-lists at justcameron.com> 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
>         
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-- 
Ashley Kyd
• Web & Software Development in Brisbane, Australia.
• Phone (07) 3129 2332, or visit http://kyd.com.au/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20090808/6d7e8ef4/attachment.pgp>