I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for "raw" paths as you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good starting point.
If "path" was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use cycleway for good ways that are OK to cycle on, footway for good ways that are not OK to cycle on, and path for raw ways where access rights are unclear. That probably covers the bulk of situations. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jacek Konieczny <jaj...@jajcus.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: > > If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you > > tag them both as designated? > > highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway > > +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) > > I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use > 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in > mind and I prefer using "path" for the more 'raw', usually unpaved > paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not > designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. > > The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not matter if > it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I am not > sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road map, > but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this thread > is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about :) > > Greets, > Jacek > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
