[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Shaun McDonald shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk
Wed Aug 12 08:24:29 BST 2009


On 12 Aug 2009, at 07:02, John Smith wrote:

>
> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> There is no consent on which way to go to express the
>> strict use case.
>
> Does there need to be?
>
> Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a  
> technical point of view all you have to do is create/get an extract  
> of a bounding area, not bounding box, covering Germany, you would  
> probably need to clip exactly on the boundary, and then you write a  
> bot to update all the highway=cycleway to be  
> highway=path,bicycle=designated,foot=no
>

No. You should use highway=cycleway;bicycle=no if you have a cycle  
path that you cannot walk on. Routing software already supports this.  
They don't support routing cyclists over the highway=path. Are you  
really trying to force cyclists on to major roads?

Shaun





More information about the talk mailing list