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

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nick Whitelegg <Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
> wrote:

> Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path,
> use "highway=cycleway"/"bicycle=designated" (optional). If you're not
> sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use
> "bicycle=unknown".
>

That's a really hard question. Reflecting my biases here, but I tend to
believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a sign
saying otherwise. I actually find it very to objectively decide whether
paths in my neighbourhood are "bicycle=yes". There are some narrow laneways
that I ride through - no idea if anyone else does, or whether the council
expects people to. Paths through gardens and parks are the same.

(I've noticed in the media sometimes a prevailing assumption that you can
ride a bike on a road, or on a designated bike path...and that's it. But I
think it has more to do with lack of imagination than actual restrictions.)


>
> >2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved,
> >and connecting streets together.
>
> If a definite cycle path:
> highway=cycleway
>
> If not:
> highway=footway; foot=permissive; [bicycle=unknown]
>

Lol. If I knew what a "definite cycle path" was, this thread wouldn't exist.
Well, I guess if there are painted bikes on the ground, it's "definite". But
that's not many.


> This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
> that pedestrians are permitted unless "foot=no" is added.
>

I wish we could codify these "general assumptions". Because they won't be
universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091130/62c5ce50/attachment.html>