On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann > > <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map > > layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used > > Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being > used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing > it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 > people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions.
I've done a completely 180 turn on using cycleway/footway/path since the introduction of path. I used to tag any path where cyclists are allowed as cycleway (whether it was actually suitable or not didn't really matter). And bridleway was completely unused by me (in the end if horses would be allowed I'd tag them as cycleway as well if cyclists were allowed). Although it was a pretty consistent way tagging, it could well confuse people looking at the maps. So now I basically use highway=path everywhere, and add the restrictions as signed on it (vehicle=no, horse=no, bicycle=no, etc). Given the specific legal meaning of a word like "cycleway" I only tag those as such when the paths have a blue round sign with a bicycle/pedestrian/horse (so when they're legally defined as cycleway/footway/bridleway). Because a path where no vehicles are allowed except bicycles is just not a "cycleway" (which also implies different traffic rules). Ben _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
