[talk-au] Proposed changes for the Australian tagging guidelines.

[Peter Ross]

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Roy Wallace<waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Evan Sebire<evan at sebire.org> wrote:
>> Bush walking paths should also be tagged as path not footway, except for
>> National parks were bicycles / horses are typically banned.
>
> I think these should still be tagged as path, with additional tags
> added as necessary. Often there are signs at the entrance with
> bike/horse, etc pictograms either crossed out in red or circled in
> green - would seem to be very simple to translate these into
> access=designated/yes/no.
>
>> In Europe cycleway tag is being discouraged as it should only be used for
>> paths that are bicycle exclusive.  The German forum is discussing the best way
>> to address this issue now with over 170 000 routes tagged as cycleways and no-
>> one ever surveying an exclusive cycleway!  I think they are going to simply
>> change all to paths.
>>
I know of some exclusive cycleways

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.9527103900909&lon=145.299789905548&zoom=14

These are the mountain bike trails at lysterfield, and they are all
sign posted bike only.

>> I think we should make it clear, use path for paths that can be traversed by
>> more than one means. For exclusive paths use cycleway or footway.
>
> That is definitely a step in the right direction. But really,
> cycleway/footway are made completely redundant by highway=path with
> the relevant access tags. And I'm not a fan of redundant tags. And
> given, as you say, Germany is getting rid of cycleways altogether, why
> not follow their lead and suggest using paths exclusively...
>
I agree with using path and adding access modifiers, as you say it
maps what is on the ground.

The issue for me is the renderer needs to distinguish between paths
which are easily navigable by a bike and those which are not even if
the bike can go down them.  That is the information that I'm
interested in.

Pete