Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Steve Bennett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Dave F. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Anthony wrote: > >> > >> Hmm, the resolution isn't quite as good as I was expecting. > Still, I > >> think I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three > >> pedestrians. Looks like shared-use, which means highway=path. > > I think this is the wrong way to decide. You're being presumptive. > > Just because you */see /*cyclists/walkers it doesn't mean they > have the > > */right /*to go there. > > Honestly, tagging on the basis of measured human activity doesn't > work. Plenty of genuine bike paths get more foot traffic than wheeled > traffic. > > > What makes them "genuine bike paths", then? Signage, or non-copyrighted data telling the user that a cyclist can go down it. > > > The "Great Divide Trail" hiking trail gets more mountain > bikes than hikers. > > The only viable approaches are those based on physical observations > and legislation/planning documents. > > > Umm, "measured human activity" is a physical observation. Physical observations of signage, not a couple of blurred images of a micro-second snapshot. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
