[talk-au] "designated" for foot and bicycle (was: Re: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 29 12:48:27 UTC 2019


On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 21:33, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> They're designed for use by foot
> and bicycle traffic, and foot and bicycle traffic is at the very least
> actively encouraged from using them in preference to the parallel
> roads.  Whether that should be "=yes" or "=designated" on these examples
> is a good question though.
>

If explicitly signposted for a particular mode, then use "designated", if
it's allowed but not signposted then use "yes". Designated is a stronger
indication.


>
> In the UK I'd tend to use "=designated" less than most people - for
> where there is explicit signage routing a certain sort of traffic a
> certain way.  However, my recollection* of those shared paths in Perth
> was that it would apply there.
>

That's how I used to think of designated, as in you are directed to use
this way, going so far as to avoid a parallel way which is not designated.
But based on widespread usage and based on the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access, that's not what I think the
tag is intended or used for. For that, I think the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Duse_sidepath is more
appropriate, albeit not very generic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190929/3a5c88d4/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list