[OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
mike at ayeltd.biz
Thu Jul 3 15:31:00 BST 2008
At 02:20 PM 7/3/2008, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>the wiki page for Tag:highway=cycleway has some inconsistencys. On the
>right it says "implies: ... foot=yes" ... In the examples on the lower
>part of the page it says "highway=cycleway" + "foot=yes".
>So either the example suggests setting an obsolete tag or the implies
>Also the blue sign (German StVO Zeichen 237) implies foot=no so even
>another inconsistency concerning the implies at least for germany.
There has never been, AFAIK, any definitive discussion on a
systematic set of defaults for the highway= tag or any tag for that
matter. Hence any inconsistency. Though I think the examples you
quote are not inconsistent ... the second one is a caption for a
photo  with a sign explicitly allowing both foot and cycle,
capturing that is good practice I think ... though I am lazy in that regard.
I certainly agree that the default for foot access should be one or
the other for highway=cycleway.
My own preference is for default foot=yes.
Outside Europe, I've never personally seen paths or tracks where
cycles go but not foot traffic. There is also usually no explicit
signage, people just do.
In Sweden, paths I've seen are either unsigned or when signed,
overwhelming with a blue sign for both cycle and foot. Cycle-only
paths are rare, and when I find them, I add foot=no. I wonder if
that is true for Germany and the Netherlands too?
More information about the talk