2010/1/6 Steve Bennett <[email protected]> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so >> again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path >> suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway. > > > I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable > than average. Much more suitable than average, if you like. > > Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have > to think about how to express it more clearly. I'm not trying to turn OSM > into a bike project - I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of > cycleway that people can agree on and that is useful. >
in Germany we have a very simple rule: if there is one of the signs (examples here): http://www.hamburg.de/image/293720/verkehrszeichen-fahrradweg-bildqu.jpg http://www.wilfo.com/blog/archives/fahrrad_weg.jpg http://www.auto-und-verkehr.de/uploads/RTEmagicC_zeichen240_fahrradweg.gif.gif it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple and easy to apply. Alternatively you can use path and additional tags (see wiki). I don't get your problem. Btw: I do go by bike, almost everytime I go somewhere, and OSM is already a kind of bike project in some point of view, but as a cyclist it is still important to me if a way is a dedicated cycleway (different rules apply, e.g. you generally legally _have_ to take it by bike if you go where it goes, pedestrians can't take it), or not. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
