> > --- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Gah... don't tag for the renderer. > > We're not tagging for the renderer, we're tagging to describe something, > perhaps this is just a case of needing a width and to render accordingly, > however you need something more than just highway=path to describe what is > currently being described. > >> What is it about the path that makes it better for cycling >> in your opinion? > > I don't cycle much so it isn't going to do much for me either way, but the > previous poster had a point about showing paths that were more for bike > riders because they were wider. > > The seafront area in Cairns has a mixture of cycle only paths / shared use paths / pedestrian paths through a single big park area So something that rendered those differently would be ideal. I know we should not "tag for the renderer".
So a cyclist path is wider, has no steps and has probably a maximum gradient. It should also have a dip in the kerb where it meets / crosses the road. A wheelchair suitable path would have even less gradient, and again have no steps, but might be narrower. I haven't read the Australian standards there, so someone else who has a better idea should chime in. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
