[OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes

[Ben Laenen]

On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
>
> <richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map
> > layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used
>
> Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being
> used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing
> it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990
> people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions.

I've done a completely 180 turn on using cycleway/footway/path since the 
introduction of path. I used to tag any path where cyclists are allowed 
as cycleway (whether it was actually suitable or not didn't really 
matter). And bridleway was completely unused by me (in the end if 
horses would be allowed I'd tag them as cycleway as well if cyclists 
were allowed). 

Although it was a pretty consistent way tagging, it could well confuse 
people looking at the maps. So now I basically use highway=path 
everywhere, and add the restrictions as signed on it (vehicle=no, 
horse=no, bicycle=no, etc). Given the specific legal meaning of a word 
like "cycleway" I only tag those as such when the paths have a blue 
round sign with a bicycle/pedestrian/horse (so when they're legally 
defined as cycleway/footway/bridleway). Because a path where no 
vehicles are allowed except bicycles is just not a "cycleway" (which 
also implies different traffic rules).

Ben