[OSM-talk] Map Feature default |was: Re: Annotation presets]

[matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Robert Scott wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 September 2006 21:14, Thomas Walraet wrote:
> > For example :
> > highway=footway imply foot=yes, cycle=no, car=no
> > highway=cycleway imply foot=no, cycle=yes, car=no
> > highway=secondary imply foot=no, cycle=yes, car=yes
> > highway=primary imply foot=no, cycle=yes, car=yes
> > highway=motorway imply foot=no, cycle=no, car=yes
> 
> Well, here's the problem - I consider footway to also imply it allows 
> bicycles. Almost all footways I see are big enough for a bicycle, but I would 
> have a hard time calling them cycleways, because 99% of their 'traffic' are 
> people on foot.

Argh! Noooooo!

Footpaths are not for cycling on. Ditto for pavements. Cycling on a pavement is
illegal; that's what roads are for*. If cycling on footpaths/pavements was
allowed, why do you think they created cycle ways? **

Just wish the police would hand out substantial fines for all the annoying
people who do cycle on footpaths. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have the
resources :(.

Nothing personal, this is just a common annoyance of mine :-).

Also, as far as I am aware, you may walk along cycleways and roads, except
motorways or where otherwise indicated you can't. Pedestrians have more
priority than cars on roads IIRC, unless things have changed in recent years.

Cheers,

-- 
Matthew


*  I am assuming footpath = same as pavement. Possibly not, should be checked.

** Last I knew, a bell was also required on a bike. Ask any blind person about
   cycles on pavements (added to lack of use of a bell) and I'l sure you'll
   never hear the end of it ;-)