[Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

Gareth L o.i at live.co.uk
Thu Sep 3 09:58:33 UTC 2020


I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way.

Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!

Gareth

> On 3 Sep 2020, at 10:42, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote:
>> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
>> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
>> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive
> 
> I think that highway=cycleway implies bicycle=yes so adding a
> bicycle=permissive would be confusing?
> 
> In my mental picture the combination highway=cycleway+foot=permissive
> means: "This is a way made and intended for bicycles. But pedestrians
> are also tolerated." - which might well be correct given that there
> seems to be a lot of cycle-related infrastructure around.
> 
> To be honest, given the rules you cite, I would be tempted to use
> highway=footway+bicycle=yes OR the dreaded
> highway=path+bicycle=yes+foot=yes - but I haven't seen how it looks on
> the ground.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list