On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Nop <ekkeh...@gmx.de> wrote: > With cycleway it is mainly for bike with foot tolerated, so cycleway is > the equivalent of bike=designated, foot=yes. >
Ok. To be absolutely clear: in Australia "mainly for bike with foot tolerated" does not exist. Also, "exclusively for bike" practically doesn't exist. There is only: 1) Exclusively for pedestrians, and signed as such. 2) Generally for pedestrians, but you can probably ride a bike on it. 3) Designated for pedestrians and cyclists, with no particular priority. 4) (Rarely) Designated for cyclists exclusively, usually with a pedestrian path nearby. 5) (And a few other cases involving horses and whatnot). How would you encode this with default access restrictions? > > > But anyhow, it seems the monthly foot/bike/path discussion is on. So I'd > invite you to check the point of views and discussions of previous > instances and maybe contribute some to the summary page. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path > > Good idea. Steve
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
