[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Mike Harris]

The problem - at least as I see it - is not so much with ways that have blue
cycle signs (round or rectangular) - these are, as you say, pretty clear.
There is more a problem with the quite widespread use of highway=cycleway
for a way which is also a footpath / bridleway / vehicular road / farm track
etc. - this seems to be happening quite often where the way in question
forms part of a SusTrans designated cycle route (ncn or rcn). I still feel
that these should be handled as a relation of type=route so that the highway
tag (which is likely to differ widely along a ncn or rcn) can be used in its
more standard and wider sense. We should aim to avoid selecting just one
type of transport for the highway=  tag on a multiuser route to avoid any
conflict between different types of user/mapper. The fairly recent (to me at
least) suggestion of the use of designation= tagging is helpful here -
although there are now, inevitably, a lot of ways with highway=bridleway
tags (by chance highway=footway does not present the same problem as
'footway' is a different word from 'footpath' - although the difference from
highway=pedestrian is less clear - at least to me).


Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Loach [mailto:ed at loach.me.uk] 
Sent: 24 March 2009 07:25
To: 'David Earl'; 'Mike Harris'
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org; 'Richard Fairhurst'
Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

> I think it is perfectly obvious in the UK, it's a cycleway if it has 
> the blue cycle sign indicating that a surface is permitted for cycling 
> when it otherwise not be.

My highway code defines that sign with a round background as "Route to be
used by pedal cycles only" - so I'd have thought highway=cycleway, foot=no.
The rectangular background version "Recommended route for pedal cycles" is a
little less clear, though I'd probably also use highway=cycleway depending
what else the route was like.

Ed