Jacek Konieczny schrieb: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: > >> There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go >> on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are >> designed and designated for bicycles. >> > > Sure. > > >> For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there >> are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so >> bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) >> > > So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, > as you know that means bicycles may go there. > > In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with > many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it > is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And > pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle > ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is > difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, > highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really > good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I > agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go > there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in > other tags anyway). > > Greets, > Jacek > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted)
-- Mario _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
