With all footpaths being shared paths here in the ACT, what makes a good cycling path is sometimes difficult to pin down.
More often than not it's the width. It's good to be able to pass a nervous cyclist coming the other way without them feeling the need to get off the path. It's also good to be able to pass pedestrians without either of you needing to head bush, or feeling "that was a bit close". But there are many other factors, and sometimes it's just a combination of such things. These other factors would include: How long a narrow section of path is. How broken up the sealed path has become. The size of the "road metal" used in the surface. If the surface is unpaved, how level/rocky/chopped up by horses hooves it is. How much pedestrian traffic uses the path. I'm sure I can think of a few other things too. John --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: I'm pretty sure no one was suggesting this (i.e. removing information). It's the way the information in entered in tags that is being discussed. The fact is that we currently have highway=cycleway;foot=yes AND highway=footway;cycle=yes, and it is difficult to choose which is appropriate for a particular shared-use path. We also ALREADY have highway=path, which is for "non-specific or shared-use" paths. This makes the above two tagging combinations redundant. I would therefore suggest at least changing the highway=cycleway and highway=footway descriptions from "mainly/exclusively" to "exclusively" - and preferably getting rid of them altogether. > All paths marked are shared paths, but one side of the creek is much more > suitable for cycling than the other. And this is because of the > significantly different physical properties of the paths themselves. Please describe the "significantly different physical properties", and see if they can be described by adding tags to a highway=path.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au