[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Mike Harris]

I would tend to use

Highway=bridleway (because that is what it is and bridleway is a clearly
defined term and cycleway is - usually - not)

Then define access with

Foot=yes
Bicycle=yes
Horse=yes

Define legal status

Designation=public_bridleway

Define surface

Surface=paved and/or tracktype=grade1

The consider whether it forms part of a recognised route (in this case,
apparently and potentially, NCN 57) and use a route relationship for this to
carry the indicator NCN 57 across the length of the route which will almost
certainly include different types of way, thus

Relation:
Type=route
Route=bicycle
Network=ncn
Reference=57

And similarly if it forms part of a long-distance footpath or equestrian
route - using further relations.

In most cases, not all of these tags will be necessary but more data is
better than less!

Btw - I think parallel ways can get very messy and the only case I have
found - so far - where they are pretty much unavoidable (because of the vast
difference in the type of way) is for a towpath alongside a canal. In this
case the absence of two separate parallel ways makes further tagging very
difficult (I don't' want to tag a canal as a public footpath and not all
towpaths are public footpaths) and also disallows the crucial indication of
whether or not the towpath connects on foot with a bridge crossing the
canal.

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:richard at systemed.net] 
Sent: 23 March 2009 15:57
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway


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).

cheers
another cycling Richard from Oxfordshire
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22663109.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.