>From the wiki, seems there's a consensus around an implicit bicycle=no for highway=footway.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway states "Where a pathway is designated for pedestrians but is also allowed for bicycles you can use highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=*footway* and bicycle <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle>=yes <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Dyes>." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy#Kinds_of_paths has a rubric that largely agrees with the above. It appears that bicycle=no is a pretty safe assumption for routers on highway=footway where tagging isn't explicitly stating bicycles are allowed. On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > > Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> writes: > > > I've noticed that bicycle routing is trying to use footways, when in > > general, footway implies bicycle=no. This should probably be updated in > > the router... > > This is news to me. I thought highway=footway to me is defined to be > > highway=path foot=designated > > which does not speak to bicycle=yes/no at all. > > But I agree this is all messy. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osmand+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
