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

[Paul Johnson]

Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote:
>> If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you 
>> tag them both as designated?
>> highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway 
>> +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted)
> 
> I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use
> 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in
> mind and I prefer using "path" for the more 'raw', usually unpaved
> paths, like in a forest.  But there are foot paths which are not
> designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there.

Could someone clarify the difference between path and bridleway?
AFAICT, the only obvious difference is path is access=no, foot=yes,
bicycle=yes, horse=yes, whereas the bridleway is only access=no,
foot=yes, horse=yes.  The former is commonly a former railroad, and is
not paved (though is usually graded and surfaced in peat), the latter
tends to be in yuppie neighborhoods around major cities (like around the
fringes of Los Angeles County where the rich go pretend to be cowboy
riding in a manicured bridleway next to a boulevard...).


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090430/20772ea4/attachment.pgp>