[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Nop ekkehart at gmx.de
Wed Aug 12 08:47:20 BST 2009


Hi!

Gustav Foseid schrieb:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de 
> <mailto:ekkehart at gmx.de>> wrote:
> 
>     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.

This is one possible way to go, but you are using assumptions which are 
diputed/interpreted differently.

> highway=cycleway (allowed and suitable)
> bicycle=dedicated (road sign)

Some people hold that designated is the same as cycleway, so it cannot 
describe a road sign. You could use bicycle=official instead, wich is 
rather new and not yet generally established.

> bicycle=yes => (not road sign)
> foot=yes/no (to make the situation clearer)

If you go for explicit tagging of all access rights you would at least 
have to also add horse=no

> 
> highway=footway (not suitable)
> bicycle=yes (but allowed)
> bicycle=dedicated (signed)

A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.


Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess tags. You 
just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing all the 
important information in access tags. This is a possible way to go if we 
can achieve consent on it, especially on the new tag "offical" which is 
required to express the legal road-signed status.


bye
	Nop





More information about the talk mailing list