On 2/5/2011 12:36 PM, stevea wrote:
Take a look at Santa Cruz County, California with OSM Cycle Map layer
(see the text in the last paragraph at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Work_to_be_done_in_the_County).
We tag highways (AGAIN: additionally tag the WAY containing highway=*)
that the County (Regional Transportation Commission) displays on its
annually-published paper Bike Map thusly:
Class I: "highway=cycleway"
Class II: "cycleway=lane"
Class III: "bicycle=yes"
bicycle=yes simply means that cycling is allowed, and is the default
state for everything but a motorway. It should not be used to mean that
the county thinks it's a good road for cycling. For instance, cycling
may be allowed on a portion of freeway, but the county instead
recommends an alternate surface route.
ADDITIONALLY, there is a "local cycleway network" route numbering system
being simultaneously proposed. The local jurisdictions are in the
process of literally seeing proposals in OSM, as we speak, using a
two-digit (initially, to include a third digit on spur and belt routes)
numbering space, but only on "major" (0, 5) routes first, 8 and 80 being
the local examples of the first two "spine" routes created. Because
there is a tag "state=proposed" which is exactly right for these, AND it
causes "dashing" to imply "proposed," we use it.
Have these been proposed by the governments, or is OSM being used as a
medium for citizens to recommend routes? The latter seems like a misuse
of OSM.
When a route is "approved" by the local jurisdiction (city, town,
county) just remove the "state=proposed" tag and the "dashing" goes to
solid. Call this "Part Two B."
No, it's when it's *signed* (example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/3553881233) that it should be marked
as not being proposed. I assume rcn 1 already has signs?
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
