[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