[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[David Earl]

On 23/03/2009 14:18, Richard Mann wrote:
> OK. So I get fed up because one of these OSM types insists on retagging 
> something that I think is a cycleway as a bridleway just because it's 
> got a sign.
>  
> I don't have time to have an edit war & I get so fed up I'm close to 
> giving up on OSM entirely, but decide to have one last stab at making 
> sense of it.
>  
> So I float a proposal on talk-gb, for highway to be physical (which 
> means it must distinguish all major path classes, so I propose 
> highway=cycle&footway to plug what to me is a big gap), designation to 
> cover the law, and access to cover routing.
>  
> So rather than make an off-hand comment on a different list under a 
> different subject, why not just say "I like", "I don't like", "I don't 
> care" or "but..." or something vaguely helpful??????

If it says bridleway, then surely it is a bridleway, since these tags
are informed by evidence on the ground, not a statutory database of
legal rights. How do you _know_ it is a cycleway if the sign says otherwise?

If you're a horse rider, you might well be just a peeved the other way
by you changing "their" bridleway to a cycleway.

In the UK bridleways are legally accessible by cyclists, so if you're
trying to use this in a context of cycling, why not just recognise
bridleway as something you can cycle on, or change the access tags to
make this clear. You could also set the surface tag to indicate that it
is a paved surface and thereofre better suited to cycling than most
bridleways (if it is, of course).

If you're just worried that mapnik *shows* it as a bridleway, then
surely Mapnik is right to do so in this case if that's what the sign says.

David