[Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

ipswichmapper at tutanota.com ipswichmapper at tutanota.com
Thu Dec 10 18:37:15 UTC 2020


Didn't know this tagging scheme existed actually. Every single path that allows both cycling and walking is tagged as "highway=cycleway", "foot=yes" and "segregated=no" in my area (as well as "footway=sidewalk" sometimes)

-- 
 


10 Dec 2020, 12:24 by epicthomasj at gmail.com:

> I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to it).
> My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
> His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route. Both of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to reflect this.
>
> I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask the community here to see what the consensus is.
> I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole reason being because it renders differently.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759
>
>
> Thank you,
> -- 
> T> homas > J
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201210/f7befe59/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list