It comes down to what you think is meant by "highway=cycleway". If you think
that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply
that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. But cycle superhighways are pretty
rare, and "highway=cycleway" is used much more widely than that. I've come
to the view that "cycleway" should be used if someone's gone to the trouble
to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting.
There are people who think calling it a cycleway is somehow anti-pedestrian.
I would certainly suggest to renderers that "cycleway" may not be the best
description - "foot/cycleway" might be better. Do we need to change the word
we use for the tag - probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but maybe not a
priority.
Do we need some other way of tagging the cycle superhighways? Maybe.
Personally I think it's more important to tag the cycle networks
(lcn/rcn/ncn), so map-readers and routers will pick out those routes, and
avoid the less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. It's also helpful to
tag cycle barriers ("barrier=cycle_barrier"), which are widely used to
discourage the use of less-suitable (but still accessible) routes.
And yes I am weeks ovredue with writing all this up in a proposal...
Richard
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
