On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Stephen Hope <slh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This was my basic understanding as well, which is why I get confused > when I see people talking about marking paths with stuff like > bicycle=designated and foot=designated. They can't both have right of > way. > Are you confusing the australian term "right of way" (ie, when two people meet, which one of them has to stop and let the other one pass) with the British term "right of way" (the right to pass through an area)? On Australian bike paths, afaik, *neither* bikes nor pedestrians have "right of way". On some trails with horses, the horses get right of way - everyone else is asked to move out of the way. There may be some bike paths where pedestrians get right of way...but that's really not what this debate is about. > > Apart from specified bicycle lanes on streets, I can't think of any > paths I'd mark as designated around here, then. Even on paths marked > and signed as part of regional bicycle routes, bikes must give way to > pedestrians. > > Still bicycle=designated, foot=designated I think. Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
