[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Mike Harris]

I agree with Richard and also note his careful and correct use of the term
"cycle track" (which is defined) rather than "cycleway" (which is used much
more widely and is not defined).


Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:richard at systemeD.net] 
Sent: 23 March 2009 16:40
To: David Earl
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

David Earl wrote:

> 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.

Sort of. There are actually two fairly important exceptions to the bridleway
> cycleway rule (this is getting a bit UK rights-of-way geeky, sorry
everyone).

A bridleway is available to cyclists but there is no obligation on the
land-owner to maintain it for cyclists. Cyclists are also required to give
way to other users.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4678
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/Info%20sheets/ff27.pdf

A "cycle track", however (as declared by a Cycle Tracks Order) confers an
obligation on the local highway authority to maintain it for cyclists. As
best as I can see, there is no formally expressed priority of use. So in
this case cycleway actually > bridleway.

This is kind of what I like about the designation= tag. The Oxford example
is maintained by the local highway authority as a cycleway. So it quacks
like a cycleway, looks like a cycleway, but is legally a...  
bridleway. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway sums this up concisely.

cheers
Richard