On 1/5/10 6:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.
Each to their own, but I'd prefer:
highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for
those officially signposted) and
highway=cycleway (for those that are not officially signposted but are
otherwise "just as good")
You don't really need the access=no (or foot=no) for the former; it's
distinctly rare that there's no route for pedestrians alongside. Using
bicycle=designated does not give the precision required (sorry Alex, I
know it's your pet scheme, but I don't think it works).
Ekkehart - other than the obvious pain of adding another tag to the
legions of official cycleways in Germany, is there any real problem
with this approach?
it's very bicycle focused.
within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just
been called bike paths
that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike
Path here in Albany
has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. Likewise, the Pinellas
Trail in the St. Pete
Florida area is officially described as a multi-use trail for the cases
where it using old railway
roadbeds.
highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated
rather accurately describes the intended official usage pattern of this
class of path. i much
prefer it to anything cobbed together around highway=cycleway, which is
inherently asymmetric
where the official policy for the trail is quite symmetric.
richard
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
