[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Nop]

Hi!

Nick Whitelegg schrieb:
>> I would prefer that "designated" does not infer "exclusively
>> designated", so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well
>> as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a
>> person and a picture of a bicycle).
> 
> Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; 
> horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It 
> would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than 
> foot/bicycle; they are not.
> 
> I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be 
> similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated.

Yes, this would work out. And a German bridleway would be 
horse=dsignated, foot=no, bicycle=no.

bye
	Nop