On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > cycleway=shoulder > (There is no bike lane, but a rideable shoulder). > > Sure, we could debate the shoulder thing forever, but "cycleway=shoulder" is > easy, and covers 90% of the reasons for mapping it: so cyclists can > distinguish between roads that have rideable shoulders and those that don't.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. cycleway=* should be for something designated for cyclists. But cyclists aren't required to use the shoulder (except on some freeways), so cycleway=shoulder is misleading. (They also aren't required to use bike lanes in many states, but those are specially designated for bikes, unlike shoulders.) To me cycleway=shoulder would mean that there are signs or pavement markings marking the shoulder as a bike lane. On the other hand, shoulder=yes means nothing for cyclists; it may have rumble strips and thus be unusable. Perhaps shoulder=smooth vs. shoulder=rumble_strips? Or shoulder=yes cycle_hazard=shoulder_rumble_strips? Shoulders are actually more important to pedestrians than cyclists. A good cyclist won't care if there's a shoulder, but a good pedestrian must walk against traffic and be prepared to get out of the way if walking in the travel lane. So if anything they should be footway=shoulder. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
