Andre Engels wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: > > >>> highway=cycleway only used for well-engineered & public/permanant >>> cycle tracks (ie could you safely do 20kph on it) >>> >> ??? >> It's only a cycleway only if it's signed or documented as a cycleway. >> >> Your logic is flawed: >> "Cycle up a steep hill at 20kph? No? Oh, well, it can't be a cycleway >> then can it" >> >> If your assuming that cycleway are only like the paved ones that follow >> the at the side roads then you're looking a then from a very narrow >> point of view. >> >> Tag what you can actually see. >> > > That's what I want to say to _you_. Tag what you can actually see. And > where I live, that usually does not include municipial regulations. > Whether a path is meant for cyclists or just for pedestrians, is > something I decide from the path and what's around it, See Andre? This is where your flaw is. /You /shouldn't decide because you don't /know. /You're being assumptive. > not from a > daily rush to the city hall to spit through meters of official > documents. If it's two meters wide, and the curves are rounded rather > than sharp, I call it a cycleway. Why can't a cycleway have 'sharps'? (by that I assume you mean large radius bends) > If it ends at a pavement alongside a > cycleway, and nothing has been done to smoothen the step that exists > from cycleway to pavement at that point, I call it a footway. > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
