2010/1/5 Nop <ekkeh...@gmx.de>: > Hi! > > Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop <ekkeh...@gmx.de >> <mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de>> wrote: >> >> Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to >> avoid. >> >> I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways >> is ridiculous :) > > Ridiculous? You mean just as ridiculous as speed limits, one-ways or > traffic lights? :-) > > It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it. > >
Legal or not we still need to sort out the difference between path/footpath/cycleway/bridleway I can't say its clear. The whole highway tag is a mess, even the lines between the road types cause too many arguments than is really good. I would suggest that cycles need a separate tag ie cycle=yes and highways where the tag is missing should have reasonable defaults. I would also do the same for pedestrians. That way the highway tag becomes a tag that is based on "Judgement" even if that "Judgement" has a set of rules so we are consistent. If you think a cycle way is a cycle way then tag it as one, but also support your decision with other tags. If you don't and someone wants to argue with your judgement then fine. I'm sure the list is more than happy to arbitrate should it turn into a tagging war. But at the end of the day its a Judgement call what ever the rules for the judgement are based on. Peter. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
