On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > ===Cycleway=== > I would say shared use paths vastly outnumber bike-only paths, so I propose > "bicycle=designated foot=designated". Horse...no? Paths that allow horses, > like rail trails, aren't too rare, but can be catered for easily enough.
Shared use paths do outnumber bike-only paths, so your suggestion probably makes sense. HOWEVER, I would strongly prefer that these are tagged as highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated, as it is much more explicit (and this kind of approach avoids the need altogether for http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions). I'm not sure if this suggestion is within the scope of this thread, though. > ===Footway== > Now, bicycles aren't allowed on *footpaths* - ie, the path that runs along > the side of the road. But they're generally allowed on most other paths, > like into or through parks, around sports grounds etc. So I propose > "foot=designated bicycle=yes". I would prefer foot=designated + bicycle=no. If an Australian tags highway=footway, I think it would be reasonably expected that bikes aren't allowed by default. Again, as in the case of cycleway, I would prefer, though, that these are tagged as highway=path + foot=* + bicycle=*, as a NSWelshman might use highway=footway differently to, say, a QLDer. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
