[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Roy Wallace]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Nick
Whitelegg<Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Silly question, maybe: but, what does "yes" actually mean? Everyone seems
> to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in
> practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case
> ("Fahrräder frei" marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to
> use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right? If the former,
> "designated" would seem appropriate; if the latter "permissive" would seem
> the most appropriate.

This is a good question. To quote from the wiki:

yes: "The public have official, legally-enshrined right of access,
i.e. it's a right of way."
no: "Access by this transport mode is not permitted, they don't have a
right of way."
designated: "The route is marked as being a preferred route, usually
for a specific vehicle type or types."

Thankfully, "no" is the opposite of "yes". I would prefer that
designated was used for "signed", and "yes/no" was discouraged, but
used for fuzzy judgements where useful e.g. suitability,
"preferred"-ness, etc.

As for how it's used in practice, hopefully everyone follows the wiki, right? :)