On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, swanilli <swani...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
"No need for a change"? You are proposing a "change" from what is documented in the wiki... If a path is designated for bicycles, it should be bicycle=designated. I don't understand your complaint here. Oh, and it's not confusing, because *=designated *implies* *=yes, so it doesn't matter what the opposite of designated is. > 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. As for what should be a "cycleway", I would say "every way that is designated for bicycles should be a highway=cycleway". This includes paths that are designated for bicycles AND designated for pedestrians, e.g. "Australian shared path". There's no implication of "primarily for __". _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
