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

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, swanilli <swanilli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Two points:
>
> 1. The terminology "foot=designated" and "bicycle=designated" is confusing,
> since the opposite of "designated" is not "no" but "undesignated" or
> "non-designated". Just leave it as it is on thousands of ways as
> "bicycle=yes" or "no" and "foot=yes" or "no". There is no need for a change.

"No need for a change"? You are proposing a "change" from what is
documented in the wiki... If a path is designated for bicycles, it
should be bicycle=designated. I don't understand your complaint here.
Oh, and it's not confusing, because *=designated *implies* *=yes, so
it doesn't matter what the opposite of designated is.

> 2. The idea that every way on which bicycles are permitted should be
> designated cycleway implying it is primarily for bicycles, is, in my opinion
> either hopeful, naïve or arrogant. If you read, for example, the extract
> from the Australian Road Rules for "Australian separated footpath" it is
> clear that the correct designation is "footpath" and not "cycleway". Leave
> well alone or you will bring the wrath of the gods down on OSM.

As for what should be a "cycleway", I would say "every way that is
designated for bicycles should be a highway=cycleway". This includes
paths that are designated for bicycles AND designated for pedestrians,
e.g. "Australian shared path". There's no implication of "primarily
for __".