[talk-au] Australian Cycleways

[Evan Sebire]

Why are we still using cycleway/footway, please describe only the properties 
of the path.  If the routing/rendering software is dumb/simple that doesn't 
mean we must be!
The tags for describing paths properties are fairly stable and that is what 
the software should be using.  Smoothness, width, surface and incline.

I find the tagging of a shared path as cycleway with foot=yes, horse=yes etc 
silly.  Using only the 'no' attribute would make much more sense.  So a shared 
path could be simply tagged as highway=path, and then describe its properties.  
Hopefully with the time many attributes are recorded against a path and the 
user can make up his/her own mind whether the activity they want to do is 
suitable to the path.  i.e. Is it to Steep?


Evan



On Saturday 12 Dec 2009 09:43:15 Liz wrote:
> I've just put a lot of definitions on the wiki stolen from (and attributed
>  to) the Australian Road Rules
> concerning the various types of footpaths and bicycle paths and lanes
> 
> We have "Shared Path" to be tagged 'footway' with bicycle=yes
> 
> I'd like to suggest that a shared path has been designed for bicycle use
>  with regard to width, surface, gradient, visibility requirements
> and that tagging it as a 'cycleway' with foot=yes (exactly as a separated
> path) would be of assistance to routing software, which could otherwise
>  send a cyclist down a road because the primary tag was 'footway'
> 
> liz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>