[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com
Mon Mar 23 16:18:16 GMT 2009


On 23/03/2009 15:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Andrew Chadwick wrote:
>> In this case, Richard's right in that it's an old bridleway still 
>> used by horses for field access. But it's also been half-surfaced 
>> nicely for bicycle use, and has blue low-flying-bicycles signs 
>> along it. And a sign saying "bridleway" and hoofprints. Oh, and 
>> nearby riding schools and horse mounting steps. And lots of 
>> foot traffic, plus private motor access. It's pretty much the
>> definition of shared use in path form.
> 
> Oooh, and it's the proposed NCN 57 too. (Though I expect NCN 57 might
> actually end up going a different way, at least at first.)
> 
> Clearly the fact that it's officially a bridleway is worth recording,
> because it implies all sorts of useful legal permissions and stuff. Yet
> clearly most users will actually use it as a cycleway, because there are
> more bikes in Oxford than horses.
> 
> So three roughly equivalent suggestions:
> 
> 1. highway=bridleway, surface=paved
> 2. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway
> 3. create two parallel ways: tag one of them as above, and the other as
> highway=bridleway, surface=something_that_implies_mud. Potlatch can do this
> for you with its parallel way feature (Other Editors Are Available).

If/when it is signed as NCN57, then it will have a cycleway sign as 
evidence on the ground. In the meantime it quacks like a bridleway, so 
surely it ought to be one.

The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road > 
bridleway > cycleway > footway loosely speaking. Unless there is 
evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't 
use cycleways. Neither cycles nor horses can use footways. Everyone can 
use roads (again unless otherwise indicated).

David




More information about the talk mailing list