Stephen Hope wrote: > 2009/12/22 Paul Johnson <[email protected]>: > >> I'm gonna have to disagree... if it allows both pedestrians and >> bicycles, that would be a cycleway in most cases. >> >> > > Around me, that is not the case. The law where I live is that anybody > is allowed to cycle on any footpath, unless it is otherwise signed, or > there is an adjacent cycle-lane or track (and even there, you only > have to use the cycle track "if convenient" - ie, it's not blocked). >
Then doesn't that make it a cycleway? If you're legally allowed to take a bike down there then, in the eyes of OSM, it's a cycleway > And I've only seen a very few paths that are signed no bicycles, or > pedestrian only. > > So (almost) every footpath in my area allows both pedestrians and > bicycles. However, some of the footpaths are definitely not > cycleways. They are very narrow, have sharp turns or gates, steps, > steep gutters, etc. Just because it's legal to cycle on them, doesn't > mean they were designed for it. Please, don't confuse legality with ability. Even if a way, that you're allowed to cycle down, has those obstructions you mention, it's still a cycleway. You point out the obstructions by using additional tags such as width=, surface=, barrier=, etc... Question to all: Is there a tag for 'sharp bend'? There's one for steep incline, so there should be one for going around a corner. Cheers Dave F. > I wouldn't mark any of these ways as > cycleway, though I might add bicycle=yes if it is possible (though not > necessarily advisable) to take a bike through them. > > Stephen > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
