I'd prefer comments on the specific point (path vs footway for rural footpaths).
I wasn't trying to make a precise proposal re the cycleway/track/unclassified distinction. I'd probably say that if the extra width was on something that excluded motor-vehs then it remains a "cycleway", but if it allowed motor-vehs it was "unclassified". Richard On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Williams < [email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:talk-gb- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of David Earl > > Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02 > > To: Richard Mann > > Cc: [email protected] > > 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
