> -----Original Message----- > From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- > boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl > Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02 > To: Richard Mann > Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country > footpaths > > Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is > signed > as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard > that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway, > which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default). > > And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed > cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are > wider > than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a > specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for > cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway. > > It will come as no surprise to you that I completely disagree with your > approach to this whole subject.
Indeed. Current guidance (though admittedly not always heeded) in the UK is for a minimum of 2.5m wide for a cycleway. So only applying highway=cycleway to ways less than 2m wide would mean that we can't add any new cycleways that follow the guidance. Gregory _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
