On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, John Henderson wrote: > 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' > > I'm not sure I follow you in the last paragraph Liz. > > Are you suggesting using: > > highway=cycleway > > or > > cycleway=track > > or something else? > > I appreciate that it's a rendering issue, but one of the nice things > about highway=cycleway is that paths which are good for cycling stand > out immediately by virtue of the blue colouration. Eg, > > www.osm.org/?lat=-35.2079&lon=149.0834&zoom=13 > > (where some of us have been busy). > > Of course, virtually all paths in the ACT are shared paths. > > John > >
without changing any of the track/cycleway/path stuff mark a shared path as highway=cycleway because then they are visible as cycleways to the renderer and to the router. the presence of a painted line down the middle of the track is the only difference between the different forms of Shared Path and Segregated Path from the point of view of a cyclist looking for a suitable route _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
