[talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Hi Ian
I did not edit Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
only Footpath Cycling

Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
contains ... controversial information. See the talk page. This page  
has been archived as part of the Australian wiki cleanup
I wonder where that controversial material has gone?

Yes adding foot=yes to highway=path seems strange to me.

Tony

> Tony,
>
>
>
> I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path and
> highway=track.
>
>
>
> I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
> pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?
>
>
>
> In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
> footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a path,
> but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000
>
>> From: forster at ozonline.com.au <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au>
>
>> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>
>> Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling
>
>
>
>> Hi
>
>
>
>> I have edited
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_
> Cycling
>
>
>
>> (1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,
> pavement and sidewalk
>
>> (2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.
>
>
>
>> Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.
>
>
>
>> Tony
>
>
>
>