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

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus <cartinus at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> > On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
> >> >> 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
> >> >> global consistency, and that that's important;
> >> >> 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
> >> >> keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
> >> >
> >> > I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that
> >> > every motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
> >> >
> >> > There is a reason they stopped doing that.
> >>
> >> The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.
> >
> > not exactly correct.
> > We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.
>
> Ok, rephrased: the reason they stopped is because it wasn't necessary.
> Obviously, we have a problem here. I'm suggesting some solutions.


I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway, but 
got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.