[OSM-talk] on-road cycle routes

[Mike Collinson]

At 12:43 PM 16/06/2007, Håkon Enger wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Mike Collinson wrote:
>
>>When mapping combined cycle/footway in Australia I started doing the opposite (highway=cycleway, foot=yes, cycleway=track) and still do.
>
>Not entirely on topic, but I don't understand the purpose of using cycleway=track together with highway=cycleway. I have seen that Potlatch uses this as a default, but I thought that cycleway=track meant that there is a separate track of cycleway along the main road (as opposed to, say, cycleway=lane, which is a lane in the road) and so should be used with other highways. I don't see how cycleway=track adds any information to highway=cycleway, so it seems superfluous. Can somebody explain to me the rationale for this combination of tags? 

Not entirely necessary but good for emphasis that it is definitely a dedicated track for cyclists rather than a lane/counter lane on a road (which I guess would be highway=primary, cycleway=lane/opposite_lane) or some urban planner's grudging sop to the cycling lobby.  In some  countries/cities, "cycle ways" tend to be pretty pathetic affairs.

Mike