[Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc

[Shaun McDonald]

On 19 Mar 2009, at 16:32, Ed Loach wrote:

>> highway=path has no such assumptions.
>
> I'm not sure that any of the highway= values have assumed
> permissions. If you tag something as a footway in JOSM it defaults
> to adding both highway=footway and foot=yes (or at least I think it
> did in a recent build).
>
> So if you have a shared use cycle/footpath where the bicycle and
> people are above each other white on a blue sign I'd say that

I would say that sign should be tagged as highway=cycleway,  
cycleway=shared, foot=yes

> highway=cycleway, foot=designated, cycle=designated and
> highway=footway, foot=designated, cycle=designated are equivalent,
> and the only difference is in how they render. I tend to sway
> towards cycleway if they are part of a signposted cycle route, or if
> there is a "preferred cycle route" sign anywhere, or footway
> otherwise. For footpaths on housing estates I'll probably have
> highway=footway, foot=yes and also add cycle=no where there is a no
> cycling sign.
>

Personally I think that there should be a way to tag differently, you  
definitely cannot take your bike on this path, like many gardens, and  
you need to dismount to continue the next section (usually signified  
by a "cyclists dismount" sign. This is why I like to use the  
bicycle=dismount tag.

> I like the idea of designation= for distinguishing between these
> paths on housing estates and the signs which are signposted "Public
> Footpath" in England (and perhaps other UK nations) so if
> OpenFootMap ever takes off they could perhaps be rendered
> differently.


Shaun

>
> Ed
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb