On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:17 AM, James Andrewartha <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > ===Bridleway=== > > I would have said we don't have these, except I think I found one on the > > outskirts of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. With the tiny bit of > traffic > > they must receive, I can't imagine that pedestrians would be banned, and > > bikes probably wouldn't be either. So, horse=designated, bicycle=yes, > > foot=yes. > > > The bridleways I know are soft sand, not suiteable for cycling at all. > The Bold Park bridle trail doesn't allow pedestrians: > http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/images/stories/boldpark/docs/BPMapwithtrails.pdf > I don't know, I've only seen one. It was sandy, but still rideable. I didn't think it was banned to bikes. Then again, looking at the aerial photos, I saw some of those horizontal wooden poles that seem designed to let horses in but block bikes and motorbikes. So maybe you're right, "horse=designated bicycle=no" - by default. I think the trail I saw is described here: http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/masterplans/article.asp?Item=12652 (in minimal detail) Anyway there are relatively few bridleways in Australia, and we're probably only going to use the tag for these well-defined trails, so...yeah I think you're right. > ===Primary etc=== > Default. Ok? >I'm a little dubious over foot=yes, but that seems to be the way it's >done everywhere else. > > ===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". > > Regular footpaths far outnumber any other type of footpath though - > most urban roads will have one, if not two footpaths alongside. And > with the Nearmap imagery it's quite feasible to map them. This ties > into foot=yes for regular roads - if we're mapping footpaths, arguably > roads should be foot=no. > > Yeah: "highway=tertiary foot=yes" doesn't mean "people can walk on this road", it means "people can follow this road on foot to get somewhere" - ie, on the footpaths on the side. And, since we're not mapping footpaths (I seem to recall there was an explicit rule to not map them), it's safe for "highway=footway" to imply "bicycle=yes". Unless anyone thinks that most non-footpath footways (ie, ones that don't run along the side of a road, crossing driveways) are banned to cyclists? Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
