On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly purpose built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode restrictions. > > True enough. Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where > foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment > that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational > trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is > the 'primary' use. And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch > of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have > subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are > grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling > them with `highway=track`.) Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a cycleway. I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific purpose. On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist. I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a single purpose. It is a general recreation trail. I suspect the "cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
