Richard Mann wrote: > Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is > it different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
At least when I'm trying to decide, I ask two questions: 1) Does it allow bicycles, and 2) Is it wide enough for two cyclists going in opposite directions at a substantial rate of speed to pass each other without hitting, swerving or slowing down, assuming each is keeping to the legally required side of the path (ie, right in most countries, left in the commonwealths)? If the answer to either question is no, then it's a footway, weather or not bicycle=yes. My assumption being that odds are someone wants to know whether a cyclist can pass knowing that taking a bicycle that direction isn't the best idea if you tend to pedal faster than jogging speed. Obviously, there's a few exceptions, such as one-way cycleways where it's obvious the intended use is not pedestrian, and pedestrian malls where the use is primarily pedestrian, but cyclists may be able to traverse the mall on select footpaths without dismounting (ie, cyclists will probably have to slow down dramatically and keep eyes peeled for Kamikaze pedestrians not expecting vehicular traffic).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
