[talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

Probably worth starting a routing thread rather than merge with a specific questions on foot traffic only thread

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 6:29 PM
To: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 16:54, <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different implied default access restrictions.

 

We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed here are:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia

 

Yep!

 

How do we handle this: https://goo.gl/maps/x39C4ky1w6S7XoLUA when motorway says bicycle=no?

 

& similarly, you can't (at least in iD) add bike lanes to trunk roads.


 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220202/708d64cb/attachment-0001.htm>