[talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path

[Liz]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Sun, 9/8/09, Ben Kelley <ben.kelley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A normal road:
> > bicycle=unspecified or no
>
> As I said, I don't cycle much so I'm just trying to think through the
> possibilities, if you're looking for a primary purpose maybe that's how to
> look at this.
>
> To play devils advocate here for a second, should highway=* be used at all,
> I mean a highway is something cars go on, or something cars used to go on
> but they turned it into a pedestrian only area, eg Martin Place in Sydney.
>
> So the following both seem illogical to me
>
> highway=cycleway
> and
> highway=path
>
> Shouldn't it be:
>
> path=cycleway
> or
> path=footway
>
> etc?
>
> It's a path not a highway, and this way you are still describing the
> primary purpose and this is suggestion is bound to make everyone equally
> unhappy :)
>
>

Just because I could 
I asked on the talk list if this proposal together with the path=shared was 
logically consistent with the German legal problem of carefully designated 
cycleways

and of course all I get so far a rant about "what is wrong with highway=path" 

suggestions here are far more civilised and can be discussed without fear of 
death