[talk-au] Default access restrictions

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ===Cycleway===
> I would say shared use paths vastly outnumber bike-only paths, so I propose
> "bicycle=designated foot=designated". Horse...no? Paths that allow horses,
> like rail trails, aren't too rare, but can be catered for easily enough.

Shared use paths do outnumber bike-only paths, so your suggestion
probably makes sense. HOWEVER, I would strongly prefer that these are
tagged as highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated, as it
is much more explicit (and this kind of approach avoids the need
altogether for http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions).

I'm not sure if this suggestion is within the scope of this thread, though.

> ===Footway==
> Now, bicycles aren't allowed on *footpaths* - ie, the path that runs along
> the side of the road. But they're generally allowed on most other paths,
> like into or through parks, around sports grounds etc. So I propose
> "foot=designated bicycle=yes".

I would prefer foot=designated + bicycle=no. If an Australian tags
highway=footway, I think it would be reasonably expected that bikes
aren't allowed by default.

Again, as in the case of cycleway, I would prefer, though, that these
are tagged as highway=path + foot=* + bicycle=*, as a NSWelshman might
use highway=footway differently to, say, a QLDer.