[OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing

[Mike Harris]

The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which
was developed after a lot of discussion in this group!

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

Designated= does not mean signed. Signed= could of course be an additional
tag - so long as we know what the sign means e.g. for routing or even for
simple access. We would have to distinguish between signed= 'public
footpath', signed= 'permissive path' path - and even signed= 'private'. But
we already have tags and a working system that does all of this. If it ain't
broke don't fix it?

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000000 at gmail.com] 
Sent: 13 August 2009 23:15
To: Jukka Rahkonen
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jukka
Rahkonen<jukka.rahkonen at mmmtike.fi> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What might be an unambiguous way to tell that some cycleway is NOT
designated?
> In theory if bicycle=designated means what it says then bicycle=yes 
> might mean that yes, it is a cycleway, but no, it is not a designated 
> cycleway.  However, I feel that bicycle=yes means more often that 
> nobody has bothered to save the designation info at all.

Well, first you have to decide what "cycleway" means to you, and what
"designated" means to you.

To me, cycleway means path, designated means signed, and bicycle=yes means
it's suitable for bikes. So if you have a path that is suitable for a
bicycle but does not have a sign with a bicycle, I would use highway=path
(or cycleway, if you insist); designated=no; bicycle=yes.