David Earl wrote: > On 23/03/2009 15:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> Andrew Chadwick wrote: >>> But it [...] has blue low-flying-bicycles signs > If/when it is signed as NCN57, then it will have a cycleway sign as > evidence on the ground. In the meantime it quacks like a bridleway, so > surely it ought to be one.
It quacks like^W^W is signposted as both. Just to be awkward, as far as I can tell. I like the sound of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation , but I'd also like to see it mature a little first and offer some really concrete guidelines for usage. > The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road > > bridleway > cycleway > footway loosely speaking. Unless there is > evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't > use cycleways. Neither cycles nor horses can use footways. Everyone can > use roads (again unless otherwise indicated). Somebody should really do a printable decision tree or flowchart for this, taking in all usable sources (including OOC maps, what's on the ground and what's signposted, local_knowledge...) Common sense only gets you so far, given that two different people can apply it and come up with two completely different perfectly sensible sets of tags for an object :) -- Andrew Chadwick _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
