On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Craig Wallace<[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/08/2009 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > > So what about things like mountain bike trails, signed or otherwise? > There's plenty that I wouldn't advise my mother to cycle on, but I > wouldn't describe them as a footway. For some of them, it may be not > recommended to walk along them. > > And even if they are signed for mountain biking, I don't think its a > good idea to tag idea it as a cycleway.
+1. highway=path, again, is a consistent way to tag all kinds of paths, and is all that is necessary to do so. e.g. highway=path, mountain_bicycle=yes (or designated - often they're signed) and foot=* as appropriate. > Cycleway implies a reasonable > quality surface and no extreme obstacles etc, and can be used on a > 'normal' bike. Not according to the wiki! This is precisely the problem with highway=cycleway and highway=footway - the tags seem to have an uncanny ability to lead people to attach all sorts of undocumented implications. And I suspect this will continue to be a problem until their use is "discouraged". _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
