[OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vsfootwayvs cycleway vs...)

[John F. Eldredge]

The same meaning of greenways (paths on public land, allowed to pedestrians and bicycles but motorized vehicles), is in use here in Nashville, TN, USA.  They are a part of the public park system, and, so far, are mostly along stream or river banks.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mike Harris" <mikh43 at googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:44:45 
To: 'Sam Vekemans'<acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com>; 'Steve Bennett'<stevagewp at gmail.com>
Cc: <talk at openstreetmap.org>; 'Tim Hoskin'<thoskin at tctrail.ca>; <info at tctrail.ca>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vs
	footwayvs cycleway vs...)

'Greenways' does have a specific meaning in England - doubtless subtly
different from whatever the Canadian definition is! But they can all be
covered, IMHO, by the tags usually used in England without introducing an
additional one. Usually they are permissive ways for pedestrians and
bicycles - usually in urban / suburban /near urban areas. Sometimes they
coincide with a public right of way but they are usually additional.

Mike Harris


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Vekemans [mailto:acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com]
> Sent: 02 December 2009 18:41
> To: Steve Bennett
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org; Tim Hoskin; info at tctrail.ca
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was:
> Path vs footwayvs cycleway vs...)
>
> Hi all,
> just jumping in here, on my show today (if i have time) im
> going to talk about 'greenways' and how this concept works,
> and highlights a challenge for mapping. (path vs. Cycleway
> vs. Footway vs. Bridleway)
>
> Cheers,
> Sam
>
> ustream.tv/channel/acrosscanadatra
> tinychat.com/acrosscanada
> 6pm PST today
>
>
> On 11/30/09, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting.  I don't know if I agree with that or not.  I
> certainly
> >> don't want to be involved in a project which encourages people to
> >> break the law, since encouraging people to break the law
> is in itself
> >> against the law where I live.
> >>
> >
> > If it helps you sleep better, presume that riding on a
> bike-prohibited
> > footpath actually means dismounting and walking with the bike :)
> >
> > IMHO many places that the maps will say bikes aren't allowed will
> > actually be grey areas. It's perfectly appropriate to leave that
> > decision to the user, with appropriate caveats. (Pretty easy to do:
> > the cue sheet can say
> > "Note: This section is not marked as legal for bicycles. Please
> > respect your local laws.")
> >
> >  Steve
> > PS Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not some kind of biking
> > hoon. I don't advocate riding at high speed through
> > pedestrian-frequented areas, on footpaths etc. I'm more
> interested in
> > finding places to ride that people hadn't thought of, rather than
> > using paths that have been explicitly ruled out.
> >
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> Skype: samvekemans
> OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk