[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Mike Harris
mikh43 at googlemail.com
Fri Aug 14 09:57:43 BST 2009
+1
Mike Harris
-----Original Message-----
From: Nop [mailto:ekkehart at gmx.de]
Sent: 13 August 2009 23:43
To: Roy Wallace
Cc: talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
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
More information about the talk
mailing list