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

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Fri Mar 20 15:05:08 GMT 2009


On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Ed Loach <ed at loach.me.uk> wrote:

> 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
> 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.

This "designated" thing really hasn't been well thought through. How
do I tag the following?

* A purpose built, private cycle path
* A purpose built, permissive foot path
* A path built for cyclists, with a legal right for pedestrians and cyclists

highway=path, bicycle=designated+no?
highway=path, foot=designated+yes?
highway=path, bicycle=designated+yes, foot=yes?

or maybe

highway=cycleway, bicycle=no
highway=footway, foot=permissive
highway=cycleway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes

Now I'm not saying that cycleway/footway is a great tagging scheme,
but I sure wish that that the "designated" thing had been thought
through a bit more.

Cheers,
Andy




More information about the Talk-GB mailing list