[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog at gmail.com
Sun Jul 15 02:50:52 BST 2007


On 7/13/07, Ian Sergeant <isergean at hih.com.au> wrote:
> I am sorry, but I still think that  "officially allowed, but not legally
> enshrined", as opposed to a "right-of-way" enshrined in law, is a
> distinction that is a very subtle one at best.  It may only be relevant in
> England, and even then possibly only to legal scholars rather than
> cyclists.

I'm not sure if we should pay attention to what's "legally-enshrined"
given that across 200+ legal systems you're going to get a
never-ending set of variations. Instead we should focus on what the
situation in like on the ground.

In NL I'm unsure if cyclists have right of way (by the english
definition) on cyclepaths or not, but it's certainly true that a
pedestrian on a cyclepath is risking bodily harm, in a way they arn't
on footpaths. There's plenty of stories about tourists in Amsterdam
not realising they should apply the same care to crossing cyclepaths
as crossing a road, and nearly being run over by a cyclist.

Now, it may be that such paths do not exist in england in which case
the tag should not be used, but in other countries they do exist and
should be recognised as such.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog at gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/




More information about the talk mailing list