On 03/04/09 13:43, Gregory Williams 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.
Yes for example my route to work goes along a long section of NCR which
is probably only 40 cm wide. But it's very definitely a cycleway.
Cheers
Chris
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
