Roy Wallace wrote: >Is tagging the "primary users intended to use the way" verifiable? If >not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was introduced into the wiki only in 2009, while footway and cycleway have been successfully used since ... the beginning. But anyway, primary intended users are those for whom the way is signed as being for (cycleway, footway) - convention was to choose the most demanding mode of transport when it's equally for both, for example for the combined cycleway and footway. This just wasn't written properly in the tag documentation until sometime in winter 2007/2008 or thereabouts. _When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one couldn't know what others consider suitable, but I hold the view that most people can relate to what others think, if they have ever ridden a bicycle after childhood. The best example I've come up with so far is that if your mother asked "should I cycle on it" you'd instantly know the answer (most of the time anyway): "definitively" (cycleway) or "you could" (footway + bicycle=yes) or "no, you shouldn't" (footway) Sometimes this did lead to ways being later changed to the other classification, but likewise some (very few but anyway) roads are changed between unclassified/tertiary depending on each user's view of the interconnecting function of that road - or of width or of legal classification. Alv _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
