[Talk-GB] Cycling in Parks

[Jon Pennycook]

Hello Steven.

Highway=footway with bicycle=yes/permissive appears as a footway in the
default OSM view, but will show as a cycleway in OpenCycleMap. Whether you
go with cycleway, footway, or path, don't forget to set a value for
segregated (and ideally include width, surface, and lit tags as these are
useful for routers!)

As to whether it should be tagged with bicycle access, given that bylaws
forbid it, I'll leave to other people to decide. Is there a sign explaining
the bylaws or forbidding cycling?

Jon

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 13:37 Steven Hirschorn, <steven.hirschorn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
> would know).
>
> One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.  highway=cycleway seems to
> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
> facto rules, but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
> to tag for the renderer) or on a cycle routing engine.
>
> What would work best to capture this situation?
>
> Thanks,
> Steven
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210113/926d4607/attachment.htm>