Andre Engels wrote: >>> 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. >> > > In other words, whenever I see a path somewhere, I should say nothing > about who it is for? Just let the user of the map or the builder of > the mapping software decide? That may be pure, it is not practical. > That's not what I'm saying, & you know it. > >>> 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) >> > > It can, but it still is an indication. You're already contradicting yourself. > There are gradations in that > too - if the path is broad, it may definitely be the case. On the > other hand, if a 30 cm wide pavement that bends around the corner of a > house, any way of steering through that on a bicycle will probably get > you off the path, so if it looks like that, the path obviously was not > created with bicycle usage in mind. I completely disagree. See my reply to Liz.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
