[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Richard Mann]

If it's good enough for a horse and a mountain-bike, but not really a
"normal" bicycle, I'd tag it as "highway=bridleway" in the UK, "highway=path
(+horse=yes if explicitly signposted)" elsewhere. If it's been improved such
to be good enough for a "normal" bicycle, I'd tag it as
"highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway+horse=yes".

I'm intending to add much of this to Mike's "designation" proposal in the
next few days, though I feel the need to understand a bit more about
how/where "path" is being used in Germany first.

Richard

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Mike Harris <mikh43 at googlemail.com> wrote:

> By the way - in England and Wales, cyclists are normally allowed to use
> public bridleways (but the highways authority has no obligation to maintain
> the way to a standard that makes it possible to cycle) unless explicitly
> forbidden by a very localised regulation. Cyclists must also give way to
> cyclists and horse riders. I would normally tag these as highway=bridleway
> with foot/horse/bicycle=yes. An alternative would be to use
> designation=public_bridleway - in which case, what do people think should be
> the value for the highway tag?
>
>
> Mike Harris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hill [mailto:chillly809 at yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: 28 March 2009 12:30
> To: Stephen Hope; talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway
>
>
> Cyclists are often going to be asked to give way to pedestrians.  Cycle
> routes often (usually) allow pedestrian access too. I would tag it as a
> cycleway with foot=yes.  The fact that they are part of a cycle trail
> reinforces this to me.
>
> But, hey, get it in the database as something close to right is the most
> important thing, it can always be changed later and its very presence
> attracts interest, use and possible improvement.
>
>  cheers, Chris
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Stephen Hope <slhope at gmail.com>
> > To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> > Sent: Saturday, 28 March, 2009 5:50:01
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway
> >
> > OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths
> > near me.  Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks,
> > and there are signs on the park as a whole that say "No motorised
> > vehicles".  These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian
> > and a bicycle, and another sign that says "Cyclists give way to
> > Pedestrians".  How would you normally mark these?  I've used footway,
> > plus bicycle=yes.  I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they
> > have to give way to other users.
> >
> > Just to confuse the issue, some of them also have name signs, and most
> > of these names are "Xxxx cycle trail" (or similar). Even on these,
> > though, pedestrians still have right of way.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090330/9f2a8722/attachment.html>