On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Richard Mann wrote: > There's an awful lot of cycleways already, so your definition has to > recognise that. I assume that something which is marked as a cycleway really is one
> The argument in Europe is whether cycleways are by default > shared (UK / Dutch norm), or by default single-use (the German position). I have found today that the Australian position is default single-use but it is customary to sign the cycleway according to its legal use. Singleuse cycleways in Australia are however in a minority - almost all are shared or separated paths. > 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. The design criteria I found suggested that there are marked differences with maximum gradient, width and forward visibility. The pdf to follow in a separate mail to beat the 40Kb limit is courtesy of Tweed Shire Council, minimum design standards from the Austroads guidelines > > 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 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
