[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