On 10/16/2010 05:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm > <[email protected]> wrote: >> There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is >> rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has, in the past, >> used the mere existence of a cycle route to tag neighboring residential >> roads as "bicycle=destination" which probably stretches the meaning of the >> concept, and might, if there is indeed a local law saying you must use cycle >> routes, even be redundant. > There is no such law in Oregon, despite Paul's claims to the contrary. > The only such law is that if there's an adjacent facility (like a > sidepath) you can't ride on the road right next to it.
I've previously provided citation including case law supporting my claim on this mailing list. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. > If bicycle=avoid were a valid tag, I'd use it on roads like this that > have unsafe "bike facilities": There's no such thing as an invalid tag. access=avoid even has a proposal in the wiki to convey suitability based on local knowledge of a route. Furthermore, intentionally vandalizing someone's work is something that I don't think anybody agrees on. Stick to what you know, please.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
