Two points: 1. The terminology "foot=designated" and "bicycle=designated" is confusing, since the opposite of "designated" is not "no" but "undesignated" or "non-designated". Just leave it as it is on thousands of ways as "bicycle=yes" or "no" and "foot=yes" or "no". There is no need for a change.
2. The idea that every way on which bicycles are permitted should be designated cycleway implying it is primarily for bicycles, is, in my opinion either hopeful, naïve or arrogant. If you read, for example, the extract from the Australian Road Rules for "Australian separated footpath" it is clear that the correct designation is "footpath" and not "cycleway". Leave well alone or you will bring the wrath of the gods down on OSM. 2009/12/14 Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> One question, though, for "Australian shared path", shouldn't this be: > >> > >> highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated > >> > >> rather than > >> > >> highway=footway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes > > > > I've updated the wiki page to this. > > I've made further updates - please correct me if you disagree - here > is a summary: > > Australian footpath: > highway=footway > > Australian bicycle path (Bicycle Only sign): > highway=cycleway; foot=no > > Australian shared path (Bicycle and Pedestrian sign) > highway=cycleway, foot=designated > > Australian separated footpath (Bicycle and Pedestrian separated by a line) > highway=cycleway, foot=designated; segregated=yes > > Australian bicycle lane (Bicycle Lane sign) > highway=<type of highway>, cycleway=lane > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au