Why are we still using cycleway/footway, please describe only the properties of the path. If the routing/rendering software is dumb/simple that doesn't mean we must be! The tags for describing paths properties are fairly stable and that is what the software should be using. Smoothness, width, surface and incline.
I find the tagging of a shared path as cycleway with foot=yes, horse=yes etc silly. Using only the 'no' attribute would make much more sense. So a shared path could be simply tagged as highway=path, and then describe its properties. Hopefully with the time many attributes are recorded against a path and the user can make up his/her own mind whether the activity they want to do is suitable to the path. i.e. Is it to Steep? Evan On Saturday 12 Dec 2009 09:43:15 Liz wrote: > I've just put a lot of definitions on the wiki stolen from (and attributed > to) the Australian Road Rules > concerning the various types of footpaths and bicycle paths and lanes > > We have "Shared Path" to be tagged 'footway' with bicycle=yes > > I'd like to suggest that a shared path has been designed for bicycle use > with regard to width, surface, gradient, visibility requirements > and that tagging it as a 'cycleway' with foot=yes (exactly as a separated > path) would be of assistance to routing software, which could otherwise > send a cyclist down a road because the primary tag was 'footway' > > liz > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
