[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

Corey Burger corey.burger at gmail.com
Fri Jul 13 04:24:43 BST 2007


On 7/12/07, Ian Sergeant <isergean at hih.com.au> wrote:
> "Alex L. Mauer" <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
>
> > in particular highway=cycleway doesn't
> > belong even in a legal sense, since bicycles don't have a right of way
> > on those (by my understanding) -- while bridleway= and footway= do exist
> > as legal rights of way
>
> Please lets not base OSM tags on some esoteric aspects of English law.
>
> Lets also consider the primary intended audience for cycleway mapping,
> namely cyclists.
>
> Personally, I think most cyclists would see a difference between
>
> highway=footway
> bicycle=yes
> (a footpath where cycling is permitted)
>
> and
>
> highway=cycleway
> foot=yes
> (designed as a shared pathway)
>
> and
>
> highway=cycleway
> foot=no
> (a bicycle only facility)
>
> So, I think it is important that if there is a change to the tagging system
> that it preserve this kind of distinction.
>
> Ian.

I think the trail tag captures this better than trying to shoehorn it
into the highway. If we want, we can keep a cycle route tag for the
next level up, as cycle routes may go down trails, along roads with
cycle lanes, etc.

Corey




More information about the talk mailing list