I would tend to use Highway=bridleway (because that is what it is and bridleway is a clearly defined term and cycleway is - usually - not)
Then define access with Foot=yes Bicycle=yes Horse=yes Define legal status Designation=public_bridleway Define surface Surface=paved and/or tracktype=grade1 The consider whether it forms part of a recognised route (in this case, apparently and potentially, NCN 57) and use a route relationship for this to carry the indicator NCN 57 across the length of the route which will almost certainly include different types of way, thus Relation: Type=route Route=bicycle Network=ncn Reference=57 And similarly if it forms part of a long-distance footpath or equestrian route - using further relations. In most cases, not all of these tags will be necessary but more data is better than less! Btw - I think parallel ways can get very messy and the only case I have found - so far - where they are pretty much unavoidable (because of the vast difference in the type of way) is for a towpath alongside a canal. In this case the absence of two separate parallel ways makes further tagging very difficult (I don't' want to tag a canal as a public footpath and not all towpaths are public footpaths) and also disallows the crucial indication of whether or not the towpath connects on foot with a bridge crossing the canal. Mike Harris -----Original Message----- From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 March 2009 15:57 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway Andrew Chadwick wrote: > In this case, Richard's right in that it's an old bridleway still used > by horses for field access. But it's also been half-surfaced nicely > for bicycle use, and has blue low-flying-bicycles signs along it. And > a sign saying "bridleway" and hoofprints. Oh, and nearby riding > schools and horse mounting steps. And lots of foot traffic, plus > private motor access. It's pretty much the definition of shared use in > path form. Oooh, and it's the proposed NCN 57 too. (Though I expect NCN 57 might actually end up going a different way, at least at first.) Clearly the fact that it's officially a bridleway is worth recording, because it implies all sorts of useful legal permissions and stuff. Yet clearly most users will actually use it as a cycleway, because there are more bikes in Oxford than horses. So three roughly equivalent suggestions: 1. highway=bridleway, surface=paved 2. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway 3. create two parallel ways: tag one of them as above, and the other as highway=bridleway, surface=something_that_implies_mud. Potlatch can do this for you with its parallel way feature (Other Editors Are Available). cheers another cycling Richard from Oxfordshire -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22663109.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
