[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Karl Newman]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Ed Loach <ed at loach.me.uk> wrote:

> > So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways
> > which
> > are for bicycles?  What an ... interesting interpretation!
>
> I think mainly/exclusively may overstress the exclusively bit. I
> think generally if a bicycle and a pedestrian can use a way, but
> cars can't then highway=cycleway (foot=yes, bicycle=yes) is a better
> choice than highway=footway (foot=yes, bicycle=yes). As has been
> said, pedestrians can also walk on most roads in the UK, yet we
> don't tag those highway=footway (foot=yes, motorcar=yes). I see
> highway=path as a handy shortcut like highway=road for tagging
> something until a 'proper' tag can be assigned, though I realise not
> everyone will agree...
>
> Ed
>

This may be a UK/Europe vs. rebel colonies thing, too, because in the US, we
don't generally have such prominently defined access rules for paths.
Certainly a system of color-coded signs and markings are not common here.
More likely neighborhood paths are geared toward casual recreational usage
(for walking dogs, etc, more than for bike commuting). So, the values used
(footway, bridleway, cycleway) have generally well-defined meanings in the
UK, but leaves those of us in the US a bit baffled. That's why highway=path
makes a lot of sense for us when it's a multi-use path, not predominantly
for any mode of transport. If it is primarily for a given mode of transport,
designated= can fill that gap. Otherwise, the access keys can cover any
posted permissions for different modes of transport.

Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090327/5fb8076d/attachment.html>