On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Roads are roads, rivers are rivers...but what the hell *is* the difference >> between a bike path and a footpath? >> > > I'm not sure you can even say "roads are roads". What's the difference > between a road and a foot/bike path? >
Roads are car width wider and can be reached from the public road network without crossing any kerbs, gates, or sections narrower than car width, and almost invariably feature at least one or two traffic signs. There are a few ambiguous situations. I recently visited a couple of bike paths in my area, and discovered that some of them, when you look really closely, they're actually roads, not bike paths: http://osm.org/go/uG4GgO60D-- Here are some more: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-37.854371&lon=144.972703&zoom=20 (Incorrectly tagged atm as footways - not really sure what to make of them). But anyway, these situations are really rare. Bikepath/footway ambiguity is extremely common. > > What do you think about the way > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.75758&lon=-73.98522&zoom=17&layers=B000FTFis > tagged and rendered? > Broadway? Sadly, I was there a few weeks before it became pedestrianised. I think I'd map it out as an "area=yes highway=pedestrian". Dunno much about it though. Steve
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
