On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Ed Loach <[email protected]> wrote: > So if you have a shared use cycle/footpath where the bicycle and > people are above each other white on a blue sign I'd say that > highway=cycleway, foot=designated, cycle=designated and > highway=footway, foot=designated, cycle=designated are equivalent, > and the only difference is in how they render. I tend to sway > towards cycleway if they are part of a signposted cycle route, or if > there is a "preferred cycle route" sign anywhere, or footway > otherwise. For footpaths on housing estates I'll probably have > highway=footway, foot=yes and also add cycle=no where there is a no > cycling sign.
This "designated" thing really hasn't been well thought through. How do I tag the following? * A purpose built, private cycle path * A purpose built, permissive foot path * A path built for cyclists, with a legal right for pedestrians and cyclists highway=path, bicycle=designated+no? highway=path, foot=designated+yes? highway=path, bicycle=designated+yes, foot=yes? or maybe highway=cycleway, bicycle=no highway=footway, foot=permissive highway=cycleway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes Now I'm not saying that cycleway/footway is a great tagging scheme, but I sure wish that that the "designated" thing had been thought through a bit more. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
