If the Dutch have a specific "cyclestreet" sign which is widely understood to mean something to road users, then I'd have said that's good enough to warrant a cycleway=cyclestreet, even if the sign doesn't generate any special traffic rules, just an expectation of priority/courtesy. But it wouldn't be sensible to use it for any old street with cycle route or destination signs.
I think the typical layout for a cyclestreet is for any parking to be in bays (ie with buildouts at junctions), resulting in a narrow carriageway, usually with a fairly constant width. This layout is sometimes done just for traffic calming anyway. It becomes a cyclestreet when you add a recognised sign. If you've got something a little more wholesale in America/Canada, then great. But the general principle is the same - you've signed it to create an expectation of priority for through cycle movements. Richard On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Cartinus wrote: > > > But all other cyclestreets I know of in the Netherlands are signposted > with > > signs that have no legal status at all. Using designation=cyclestreet > there > > would not be appropriate. Using highway=residential or unclassified plus > > cycleway=cyclestreet sounds like a very good idea for them. > > If it's merely posted as a bicycle route but it's not a cyclestreet, > that would just be whatever highway= plus bicycle=designated. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
