There's an awful lot of cycleways already, so your definition has to recognise that. The argument in Europe is whether cycleways are by default shared (UK / Dutch norm), or by default single-use (the German position). There's no real argument over the physical (minimal obstructions for road bikes / no cars), though there is argument over what should be done about paths that are nearly but not quite.
Regardless of what the wiki says, 99% of the use of "path" is for rough paths (in forests and fields). The shared use stuff was invented by the Germans for their single-use model, and isn't widely used for that, even by them. Richard On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Liz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: > > So here's my (proposed) scheme: > > > > highway=path (deprecate footway and cycleway!!) > > Any support for > path=foot > path=cycle > path=horse > > path being distinct from highway (more work needed on this) > highway for motorised vehicles who may (?!) share > path not for the fourwheeled vehicles at all - too narrow or prohibited or > unrealistic as it contains a flight of steps > > i'm looking at cycleway as being 'designed for cycle use' with regard to > width, surface, gradient > subgroups (the australian) exclusive, shared and separated > all of which would be designated with a bicycle sign > *designed and designated to qualify for cycleway* > > other ways which are used by cyclists and pedestrians > path=foot bicycle=yes > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
