Frederik Ramm wrote: >Sent: 02 June 2008 10:30 PM >To: Shaun McDonald >Cc: [email protected]; Alex Mauer >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path,designated. Rejected: *way >deprecation > >Hi, > >> I would also like to see the value bicycle=dismount, for short >> sections where cyclists have to dismount as part of the cycle network. > >I should expect any good bike routing algorithm to consider footways >as well, with speed suitable for walking. I'm not aware of any footway >were you are not allowed to push your bike. Thus I would simply tag a >cycleway where you have to dismount as a footway - I don't see a >practical difference.
I'd do the same. A point of note though that in the UK you are generally not allowed to cycle on footpaths and indeed in most urban areas there are no-cycling signs on many of them to stop you doing so. I personally don't agree with the policy but we have had it for a long time and is the norm here, not easy therefore to overturn without an Act of Parliament presumably. Cheers Andy > >Bye >Frederik > >-- >Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.5/1479 - Release Date: 02/06/2008 >7:02 PM _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
