Hi! Gustav Foseid schrieb: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop <ekkeh...@gmx.de > <mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de>> wrote: > > In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between > bicycle=<allowed/suitable> and bicycle=<road sign>. This is not about > marking a default, this is about describing the real situation precise > enough to make deductions about access rights for _other_ traffic.
This is one possible way to go, but you are using assumptions which are diputed/interpreted differently. > highway=cycleway (allowed and suitable) > bicycle=dedicated (road sign) Some people hold that designated is the same as cycleway, so it cannot describe a road sign. You could use bicycle=official instead, wich is rather new and not yet generally established. > bicycle=yes => (not road sign) > foot=yes/no (to make the situation clearer) If you go for explicit tagging of all access rights you would at least have to also add horse=no > > highway=footway (not suitable) > bicycle=yes (but allowed) > bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess tags. You just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing all the important information in access tags. This is a possible way to go if we can achieve consent on it, especially on the new tag "offical" which is required to express the legal road-signed status. bye Nop _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk