[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Roy Wallace]

2009/8/12 Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de>:
>
> Hi!
>
> Lauri Kytömaa schrieb:
>> _When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists
>> on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way
>> was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one
>> couldn't know what others consider suitable, but I hold the view that
>> most people can relate to what others think, if they have ever ridden a
>> bicycle after childhood.
>
> This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the
> German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are
> having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk
> on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be
> suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it
> is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestrian).

+1. Which means you have to tag it with foot=* anyway, so why not (in
future) recommend consistently using highway=path with foot=* and
bicycle=* etc.

And Lauri, I have no idea what you would consider "suitable for the
common cyclist". Please, at least write the criteria down. And yes, I
have ridden a bicycle after childhood.