[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

David Earl wrote:
> On 23/03/2009 15:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Andrew Chadwick wrote:
>>> But it [...] has blue low-flying-bicycles signs 
> 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.

It quacks like^W^W is signposted as both. Just to be awkward, as far as
I can tell.

I like the sound of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation ,
but I'd also like to see it mature a little first and offer some really
concrete guidelines for usage.

> 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).

Somebody should really do a printable decision tree or flowchart for
this, taking in all usable sources (including OOC maps, what's on the
ground and what's signposted, local_knowledge...)

Common sense only gets you so far, given that two different people can
apply it and come up with two completely different perfectly sensible
sets of tags for an object :)

-- 
Andrew Chadwick