I've added a lot of cycleways in North Canberra recently.
In the ACT, virtually all footpaths are legally shared (foot and bike) paths.
So I've tagged most of the wider ones as highway=cycleway, foot=yes. This is
how I understand the suggestion in the Australian Tagging Guidelines.
Where the path isn't really wide enough for bikes to pass each other easily
without one getting off the path, I've usually tagged them as highway=footway,
bicycle=yes.
It seems clear that the wider paths here are designed for bikes (as well as
foot traffic).
The guidelines go on to suggest that cycleway=track should be added where
pedestrians and cyclists are separated by a line. I know that happens in
places outside the ACT.
John
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Ben Kelley <ben.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be good to sort out the highway=cycleway/footway/path issue.
It seems that the status quo is "What do you think the primary purpose is?"
Part of the problem is that things like:
highway=cycleway
foot=yes
renders quite differently to:
highway=footway
bicycle=yes
(esp on the cycle layer)
I think I know of only one exclusive cycleway.
If this is an issue in other countries then perhaps getting the rendering
changed would be a good way forward.
- Ben
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
