[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Nop]

Hi!

Greg Troxel schrieb:
> For highway=cycleway, clearly bicycle=designated is implied.  But we
> have to just define whether foot=yes or foot=no is the default, and then
> tag the exceptions.  In the US, every bike path I've seen has also
> allowed pedestrians, so I'd be inclined to have foot=yes be the default,
> but I realize other places have different rules.

This is exactly one of the controversities as it only conveys the 
lenient use case.

In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between 
bicycle=<allowed/suitable> and bicycle=<road sign>.  This is not about 
marking a default, this is about describing the real situation precise 
enough to make deductions about access rights for _other_ traffic.

If I follow your statement: Cycleway means foot=yes (Map features). It 
also means bicycle=designated. But the offical road sign in Germany 
restricts to foot=no. So designated _cannot_ be used for ways with road 
signs as it is too weak to express this correctly. An additional tag 
"official" has been proposed to express the "offically and legally 
dedicated".

But the opposing argument works just the other way: If I look up 
"designated" in a dictionary it means "marked with a sign" and it is the 
only/most fitting tag for the purpose anyway, so in Germany 
bicycle=designated must mean foot=no, so it cannot be the same as 
highway=cycleway which means foot=yes. Or if it is the same, cycleway 
must mean foot=no.

There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case.

bye
	Nop