Hi!
Gustav Foseid schrieb:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
