On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> Bike signs. Painted bike symbols. Documentation to that effect. > > Fair enough. But in the absence of such conclusive evidence, then what?
Then it's not a "genuine bike path", it's just a bike path. That's the only distinction I'm making. A "genuine bike path" can be used by more pedestrians than cyclists, which changes nothing. Same goes for normal bike paths. > Now nothing. What does it matter if the way is tagged as footway or > cycleway or path? Some people like to get worked up about these things, but > according to the definitions I read, so long as you include bicycle=yes on a > footway which allows bicycle traffic, it really doesn't matter. Personally, > I'd have probably used highway=path if it's that evenly split. Highway=path is something else entirely. No one really knows what, though. But IMHO if something is borderline footway, and borderline cycleway, it doesn't suddenly become something else entirely - that's a bad solution. > If you've got a better proposal, write it down, put it up somewhere on the > wiki, and we'll vote on it. Sure. Where? I'm confused by the number of different but overlapping discussions, are we talking about just an Australian proposal atm? I was pretty happy with what someone (Liz?) put up, with one minor change. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
