Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> writes: > Volker Schmidt wrote: >> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the >> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries > > That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the > wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often used for little > footpaths across city parks, sidewalks, and so on. > > cycle.travel errs on the side of caution and therefore doesn't route along > highway=path unless there's an explicit access tag (or cycle route > relation). > > Keeping bicycle=yes on bikes-allowed paths is useful information. If there's > no bicycle= tag, yes, it could mean "bike access is implied by a default > somewhere on the wiki" but it could also mean "this way is tagged > incompletely". Deleting the tags would remove information and make it harder > for routers to deliver real-world routing results. Please keep them.
Strongly seconded. Richard has it 100% right here, and has explained it very well. I would consider removing bicycle=yes from highway=path to be damaging and antisocial. As far as path having some legal definition of access rules, I would say that's very far off base in the US, as paths are usually on places where the property owner (even if the government) can set rules, as opposed to streets which are owned by the government where access is controlled by statute, more or less. It is very normal for paths in conservation land in the forest to allow only foot travel, or also bicycle, or also horse and bicycle both. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
