Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-15 Thread swanilli
Two points: 1. The terminology foot=designated and bicycle=designated is confusing, since the opposite of designated is not no but undesignated or non-designated. Just leave it as it is on thousands of ways as bicycle=yes or no and foot=yes or no. There is no need for a change. 2. The idea that

Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-15 Thread Liz
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, swanilli wrote: 2. The idea that every way on which bicycles are permitted should be designated cycleway implying it is primarily for bicycles, is, in my opinion either hopeful, naïve or arrogant. If you read, for example, the extract from the Australian Road Rules for

Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-15 Thread Roy Wallace
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, swanilli swani...@gmail.com wrote: Two points: 1. The terminology foot=designated and bicycle=designated is confusing, since the opposite of designated is not no but undesignated or non-designated. Just leave it as it is on thousands of ways as bicycle=yes or

Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-13 Thread Steve Bennett
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: One question, though, for Australian shared path, shouldn't this be: highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated rather than highway=footway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes I've updated the wiki page to this. I

Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-13 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: One question, though, for Australian shared path, shouldn't this be: highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated rather than highway=footway, foot=yes,

Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-13 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: One question, though, for Australian shared path, shouldn't this be: highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated rather than

Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-13 Thread Steve Bennett
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: I'm thinking that a cycleway is a place *designed* to ride bikes Yep. Regardless of whether it has signage. Look at this example:

Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-12 Thread Roy Wallace
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: so i filled the Australian guidelines page with definitions from the road rules hope no one gets offended! Nice work. I'm adding talk-au to this discussion. Liz has updated:

Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

2009-12-12 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009, you wrote: One question, though, for Australian shared path, shouldn't this be: highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated rather than highway=footway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes ? I was just starting on making it highway=cycleway but I agree with Roy give it