[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Nop]

Hi!

Roy Wallace schrieb:
> If "footway/cycleway is fuzzy" in terms of current usage (and I
> believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that
> "designated" mean "signed". This stays true to "mapping what is on the
> ground", and separates legal issues from geographical/physical
> features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the
> current usage of "designated" (correct me if I'm wrong). For example,
> in Australia you may be "legally" allowed to ride a bicycle on a
> footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as
> "bicycle=designated". You can often "legally" ride a bike on an
> Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with
> "bicycle=designated".

Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally 
dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually 
road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature 
reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: 
Designated means designated by the government.

But in this approach, ways that are just waymarked as a route are _not_ 
designated. A cycle route often runs on a tertiary highway, but that 
doesn't make the highway a designated cycleway.

bye
	Nop