On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 21:33, Andy Townsend <[email protected]> wrote:
> They're designed for use by foot > and bicycle traffic, and foot and bicycle traffic is at the very least > actively encouraged from using them in preference to the parallel > roads. Whether that should be "=yes" or "=designated" on these examples > is a good question though. > If explicitly signposted for a particular mode, then use "designated", if it's allowed but not signposted then use "yes". Designated is a stronger indication. > > In the UK I'd tend to use "=designated" less than most people - for > where there is explicit signage routing a certain sort of traffic a > certain way. However, my recollection* of those shared paths in Perth > was that it would apply there. > That's how I used to think of designated, as in you are directed to use this way, going so far as to avoid a parallel way which is not designated. But based on widespread usage and based on the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access, that's not what I think the tag is intended or used for. For that, I think the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Duse_sidepath is more appropriate, albeit not very generic.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
