Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes on foot-cycle-paths

Hi, I did some thing similar, too. highway:lanes=cycleway|footway surface:lanes= width:lanes= in addition to all the normal (fallback) tags. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27131742 Didn't use bicycle:lanes=designated|no or foot:lanes=no|designated though. But I like it. I'm going to also

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes on foot-cycle-paths

Thanks, Marc, for spotting the spelling error. you seem to have a typo in the "foot:lanes=no|dsgnated" > But when I look at the Mapillary photo's I think there are 2 bicycle > lanes (one for each direction) and a sidewalk (there is a kerb) for > pedestrians. > Yes, there is a (mini-) kerb) and

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes on foot-cycle-paths

Hello Volker, you seem to have a typo in the "foot:lanes=no|dsgnated" But when I look at the Mapillary photo's I think there are 2 bicycle lanes (one for each direction) and a sidewalk (there is a kerb) for pedestrians. regards m On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:02 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes on foot-cycle-paths

I forgot to mention that you can look at the Mapillary photos to better understand the situation. On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 23:00, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Please have a look at way 41506101 >

[Tagging] bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes on foot-cycle-paths

Please have a look at way 41506101 where I have used bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes to indicate the relative position of the foot/cycle lanes on a foot-cycle path with segregation. Is that a good approach to map this ? Are there better approaches to map