Does it have bike route signage? It's designated.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> wrote: > bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated&redirect=no > is just redirect, to page that describes hopelessly inclusive rules "It > may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport (i.e. > normally a > vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed), or may be just a > suggested > route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some > particular streets are recommended and signed as such.)". > > According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial > <some_access_tag>=designated "often includes ways that have no legal > dedication like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club" - maybe > "often" > is not correct, but such tagging would not be against what is described on > wiki. > > bicycle=designated is described as standard for tagging of official > cycleways, but > AFAIK it is not defined on wiki that it should be used exclusively for > this purpose. > > So how one should tag in following situations? > > 1) official cycleway > 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal > 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but > usually nobody > bothers to enforce this rule > 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal > 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other > rules > change this > 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal > 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to > enforce this rule > 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced > > I would use > > 1) [highway=cycleway] (bicycle=designated is implied) or [highway=path; > bicycle=designated] > 2) nothing iff bicycle=yes is implied, bicycle=yes otherwise > 3) nothing iff bicycle=no is implied, bicycle=no otherwise > 4) see above > 5) bicycle=yes > 6, 7, 8) tag route as relation, with bicycle access tagged as above > > but according to wiki > > 1) may be tagged also using bicycle=official > 5) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("normally a vehicle is banned, > but in > this case it is allowed") > 6, 7, 8) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("a suggested route") > > What more, there are people interested in different tags for situation 3) > and 4) > (usually they want to use bicycle=designated for 3). > > I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about > > I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official > II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official > III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official > IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to > bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status > > I and II are not solving "I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes" > II in addition would mean that say horse=designated and bicycle=designated > follows different logic > III would mean that multiple data consumers need to follow tagging change > IV is an ugly hack that would be sooner or later followed by III > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging