Hi. 2009/8/8 John Smith <delta_foxt...@yahoo.com>
> Can someone marking in these cycle paths comment on if there is common > widths or what width would people deem to be a footway, cycleway, bridleway, > etc? > > For me the important point is whether you can cycle on the path or not. For the purposes of the cycle map, do you want to indicate this path differently? Generally if the path forms path of a marked cycle route this is important, and not so important otherwise. It's a tricky thing: Sure, don't tag for the renderer, but given that what a lot of people use is the rendered map, I can see why people use highway=cycleway for something that is not exclusively for cycling. Interestingly, most cycle maps I have seen mark "on road" and "off road" routes, regardless of whether pedestrians are allowed on the "off road" routes. I will suggest changing the rendering of the cycle map to be more like this. e.g. The current rendering of a cycleway that is a marked cycle route used for: bicycle=yes (even if implied), motor_car=no (even if implied), lcn/rcn=* (At the moment you only get this for highway=cycleway) vs The current rendering of a normal road that is a marked cycle route used for: bicycle=yes (even if implied), motor_car=yes (even if implied), lcn/rcn=* vs A normal road: bicycle=unspecified or no - Ben.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
