On 29/09/2019 11:34, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 28/9/19 8:55 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use
mode=designated. So a shared cycle pedestrian path is
foot=designated+bicycle=designated.
Actually in Australia if a path is designated for bicycles then you
can't walk on it:
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s239.html
vice versa if it's designated for pedestrians then you can't ride on it:
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s249.html
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but my
recollection of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28280889 and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/144351108 in Perth matches the current
mapping (apart from the names on the ways - I'd say that it belongs on
the relation rather than the name). They're designed for use by foot
and bicycle traffic, and foot and bicycle traffic is at the very least
actively encouraged from using them in preference to the parallel
roads. Whether that should be "=yes" or "=designated" on these examples
is a good question though.
In the UK I'd tend to use "=designated" less than most people - for
where there is explicit signage routing a certain sort of traffic a
certain way. However, my recollection* of those shared paths in Perth
was that it would apply there.
Best Regards,
Andy
* from a while ago, so obviously things may have changed.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
