[talk-au] Australian Cycleways

[Liz]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, John Henderson wrote:
> 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'
>
> I'm not sure I follow you in the last paragraph Liz.
>
> Are you suggesting using:
>
> 	highway=cycleway
>
> or
>
> 	cycleway=track
>
> or something else?
>
> I appreciate that it's a rendering issue, but one of the nice things
> about highway=cycleway is that paths which are good for cycling stand
> out immediately by virtue of the blue colouration.  Eg,
>
> www.osm.org/?lat=-35.2079&lon=149.0834&zoom=13
>
> (where some of us have been busy).
>
> Of course, virtually all paths in the ACT are shared paths.
>
> John
>
>

without changing any of the track/cycleway/path stuff
mark a shared path as highway=cycleway 
because then they are visible as cycleways to the renderer and to the router.
the presence of a painted line down the middle of the track is the only 
difference between the different forms of Shared Path and Segregated Path from 
the point of view of a cyclist looking for a suitable route