[Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways

Karl Newman siliconfiend at gmail.com
Thu Nov 27 17:35:24 GMT 2008


On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:15 AM, David Carmean <dlc at halibut.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 05:27:44PM -0800, Scott Atwood wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Multi-Use Paths (a.k.a. Class I).  This one is also pretty easy.  I tag
> > these as {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}.  However, one
> wrinkle
> > is that these MUPs sometimes have have sections with an on-street
> alignment.
> >  In that case, I added a relation to the entire MUP, both the off-street
> > trail portions, and the on-street alignments, that was tagged like
> > {route=bicycle, type=route, name=_name_of_the_MUP_}.  I intentionally
> left
> > off the network tag from the relation, since this isn't part of a formal
> > route network per se, but if anything, it would be {network=lcn}
>
> How did you decide upon this scheme?  I've been working on sections of the
> SF Bay Trail, some of which even allow horses.  I've been tagging these
> primarily as {highway=path|track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes|no,
> surface=paved|gravel|dirt}.  The choice of "path" or "track" has been a
> little
> imprecise.
>

Your scheme seems better. A multi-use path is exactly what highway=path was
intended for. It's not primarily for any mode of transportation, but
pedestrians, bicycles and sometimes horses are all allowed. As for path vs.
track, I think of track as something like a fire road or similar, something
that is occasionally used by wheeled vehicles, usually with special
permission.

Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20081127/6ab41c62/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list