[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Richard Mann]

 Before we all get too depressed, I think I agree with both of you (Dave /
Mike) that any changes to tagging should be backwardly-compatible, as far as
practical (or at least minimise the "wrongness" if the old tagging is
unchanged).

But we also need a scheme that is simple, effective and shows what's on the
ground, not just what's on the sign.

I think the nub of it is the tagging of path/bridleway/cycleway. I think
"path" serves a useful function for ways that are more than just footways,
but where usage/access for horses/mtb/bicycles is uncertain. I think
"bridleway" serves a useful function in those countries where access for
horses is well-established (and thereby is becomes a useful shorthand for
highway=path+designation=public_bridleway), but in practice there may be
little to distinguish a bridleway from a path (and there might be sense in
rendering them quite similarly).

Whereas, highway=cycleway is an explicit assertion that the surface is
somewhat better than you might expect on a bridleway/path, without going
into the minefield of the multiple values that might be tagged for
tracktype/surface/smoothness.

I think I'm concluding that highway=cycle&footway is unnecessary; perhaps
highway=cycleway+cycleway=shared would be a better bet (and leave it to the
renderers whether they do anything with that). But if highway=cycleway is to
be used for shared cycleways, then the wiki definition will need to be more
inclusive than currently.

Richard (West Oxford)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090326/150ae2bf/attachment.html>