[Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways

[Scott Atwood]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Karl Newman <siliconfiend at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.


When I decided on using {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}, was
simply following existing usage in my local area which seemed to make sense
to me.  When I started mapping, the Guadalupe River Trail was already mapped
and tagged like this, so I just continued using the same tagging scheme on
other local MUPs as well.

Even the highway=path example page says that {highway=cycleway,
foot=designated} can be used interchangeably with {highway=path,
bicycle=designated, foot=designated}.

The only places I have personally used {highway=path} is when it was just
sort of an informal dirt path that isn't clearly designated for any
particular kind of user:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.3778&lon=-121.93067&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF

And here is an example of a location where I distinguished beteween
{highway=cycleway}, {highway=footway}, and {highway=path}:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.294868&lon=-121.791088&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF


I think the path vs. track distinction is a Britishism, because I read a
page that was intended to distinguish them, and it didn't make much sense to
me:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping

-Scott



-- 
Scott Atwood

Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia.  ~H.G. Wells
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20081127/655a5347/attachment.html>