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

[Richard Mann]

I'd conceived "highway=cycleway" meaning that the way was wide enough that
pedestrians didn't need to use it (or there was an adjacent route for
pedestrians). I think this is how it is in widespread use in the Netherlands
/ Germany.

That doesn't work as well in the UK context, where we mostly have rather
less width, such that pedestrians and cyclists are (sometimes uncomfortably)
sharing the same space, even if there's a notional white line separating
them. This is the situation for which I thought highway=cycle&footway would
be a better description (ie something that's not one thing or the other but
trying to be both). It's this type of path that neither highway=footway or
highway=cycleway seems to fit.

I've no familiarity with the situation outside Europe; others will have to
comment. I put this comment on Talk-gb because I thought it's the UK
situation that needs a fix (what with our narrow cycle paths and complicated
rights of way legislation). Or I could just tag them as highway=cycleway,
with the understanding that in the UK you get less for that than you do in
the Netherlands!

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20090320/7f696196/attachment-0001.html>