On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> So, what's your definition of "cycleway"? > > Do you mean the tag, or the reality? If the reality, then I could > describe several classes of bike path and multiuse path and pedestrian > path. > > I would distinguish: > 1) pedestrian paths, footpaths etc which provide access to buildings > etc, with an optional tag for legalities of bikes. These are paths not > suited to bikes, but you might do so. > 2) generic paths, like through parks, public areas etc. They were > generally designed for pedestrians, but if you're there on a bike, > you'll use it. Again, optional tags for legalities. > 3) bike path/multiuse path. Generally long, smooth, few obstructions, > and frequently with an actual name (as opposed to other paths that > never have names, only destinations). Honestly, there's no difference > between a multi use path and a bike path, except perhaps width and > legalities. > > I would like to tag these something like: > 1) highway=footway (with bicycle=no implied) > 2) highway=path (with bicycle=yes, foot=yes, car/vehicle=no implied) > 3) highway=cycleway (with bicycle=yes, foot=yes) implied. > > Note I said *like to*...that's some kind of proposal, not what I'm > actually doing.
Seeing as we're throwing around proposals, here's another :) Sorry, I don't like your's, because: 1) I don't think it's explicit enough (i.e. you can't infer the meaning directly from the tags) 2) it mashes together "access", "suitability", "through parks", "designed for", "you'll use it", "long", "smooth", "have names", ... there's way too much going on here - I think with these kinds of definitions we'll just end up in the same situation with the same problems we already have So here's my (proposed) scheme: highway=path (deprecate footway and cycleway!!) *=yes/no (deprecate unless we are confident that current usage always refers to legal status) *:legal=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:legal=* - for those who want to map the law) *:signed=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:signed=* - for those who want to map what's on the ground) *:suitable=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:signed=* - for those who want to map suitability) designation=* (official classification, i.e. read from a legal document) (Plus encourage the use of source:*=*, and use surface=* and width=* as usual) Notice there's no *necessity* for "suitability" or "predominantly used by" rubbish, which we will never unanimously agree on. If you want to map this, do it with additional tags. We've tried mashing this into the highway=* value, and it HASN'T WORKED :-P Is there anything missing? Those who want to map "what's on the ground" can map signage+surface+width, those who want to map the law or suitability can also do so - but in the above scheme they *don't overlap*. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
