2010/1/6 Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com>: > I've created an entry on the default access restrictions wiki page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia > > Now we can debate each line: > > ===Trunk=== > Default. Ok?
There are some trunk roads in Perth that have motorway-style restrictions, but they are the exception. > ===Primary etc=== > Default. Ok? I'm a little dubious over foot=yes, but that seems to be the way it's done everywhere else. > ===Bridleway=== > I would have said we don't have these, except I think I found one on the > outskirts of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. With the tiny bit of traffic > they must receive, I can't imagine that pedestrians would be banned, and > bikes probably wouldn't be either. So, horse=designated, bicycle=yes, > foot=yes. The bridleways I know are soft sand, not suiteable for cycling at all. The Bold Park bridle trail doesn't allow pedestrians: http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/images/stories/boldpark/docs/BPMapwithtrails.pdf > ===Cycleway=== > I would say shared use paths vastly outnumber bike-only paths, so I propose > "bicycle=designated foot=designated". Horse...no? Paths that allow horses, > like rail trails, aren't too rare, but can be catered for easily enough. +1 > ===Footway== > Now, bicycles aren't allowed on *footpaths* - ie, the path that runs along > the side of the road. But they're generally allowed on most other paths, > like into or through parks, around sports grounds etc. So I propose > "foot=designated bicycle=yes". Regular footpaths far outnumber any other type of footpath though - most urban roads will have one, if not two footpaths alongside. And with the Nearmap imagery it's quite feasible to map them. This ties into foot=yes for regular roads - if we're mapping footpaths, arguably roads should be foot=no. James Andrewartha _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au