[talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

[Steve Bennett]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> One question, though, for "Australian shared path", shouldn't this be:
>
> highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated
>
> rather than
>
> highway=footway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes

I've updated the wiki page to this. I think we need to look further
than the legal definitions because, for a start, they're barely
comprehensible. I still don't really get what an "Australian bicycle
path" would cover.

My suggestions. Tag all the following "cycleway":
- all shared use paths
- all paths with a bicycle sign anywhere on them
- all sealed footpaths that have names (ie, in local council
documentation, like "xxx trail")
- all rail trails
- any sealed path that cars aren't allowed on and that is longer than
one kilometre, and that doesn't have an explicit prohibition on bikes.

I had an interesting tagging situation today in Elwood, Melbourne. Have a look:

http://osm.org/go/uG4GgO58u--

I've tagged the path on the south side as a cycleway because:
- it's referred to in council documentation as a bike path
- it has intermittent bike signage
- it has no kerbs, even at street approaches

I've tagged the path on the north side as a footway because:
- it has kerbs

Other than that, they're almost identical: wide, sealed (asphalt) etc.
Further east it's harder to distinguish which side is "the bike path"
and which side is just a walking track. I was also amused to discover
that sections of both side are actually *roads*: they provide access
to garages next to the canal. This information is not present in
either Google Maps or Melway.

Steve