[OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

As an Englander who has lived, albeit briefly, in Germany I do perhaps
recognise the difference between Germany and England as regards cycleways. I
think - but am not certain - that Germany is relatively unusual in having a
lot of cycleways that are NOT for pedestrians (foot=no) as Cartinus
suggests.

However, segregated cycleways are - I believe - common in both countries
(and others) - i.e. there are parallel 'lanes' for cyclists and pedestrians
(even if the separation / segregation is only by a  painted white line - and
[only in England, of course, never in Germany (;>)] - often ignored by both
classes of user). Rather than use something a bit complicated like
"highway=cycleway+footway=lane" I tend to prefer the advice given in the
wiki at:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

which even addresses the dreaded snowmobile issue.

In a more general vein the use of the designated= tag has 'solved' a number
of related problems - at  least for me.

But long live chaos, anarchy and OSM ... (:>)

Mike Harris
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cartinus [mailto:cartinus at xs4all.nl] 
> Sent: 30 November 2009 00:31
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have 
> > consistency within each country?
> 
> I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.
> 
> It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is 
> probably the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.
> 
> The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the 
> middle (that separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have 
> been done with highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something 
> similar. That is analogous to how we treat e.g. a tertiary 
> road with cycle lanes.
> 
> etc. etc. etc.
> 
> The path crowd however wanted "one solution for everything" 
> and can't accept that people didn't want to redo all existing 
> tagging. Especially not in places where it simply works.
> 
> The result is that some people use path as it is designed, 
> some people don't use path at all and other people use path 
> for what the translated word path means in their language 
> (often some kind of unpaved footway).
> 
> --
> m.v.g.,
> Cartinus
> 
> 
>