On 19 Mar 2009, at 16:32, Ed Loach wrote: >> highway=path has no such assumptions. > > I'm not sure that any of the highway= values have assumed > permissions. If you tag something as a footway in JOSM it defaults > to adding both highway=footway and foot=yes (or at least I think it > did in a recent build). > > So if you have a shared use cycle/footpath where the bicycle and > people are above each other white on a blue sign I'd say that
I would say that sign should be tagged as highway=cycleway, cycleway=shared, foot=yes > highway=cycleway, foot=designated, cycle=designated and > highway=footway, foot=designated, cycle=designated are equivalent, > and the only difference is in how they render. I tend to sway > towards cycleway if they are part of a signposted cycle route, or if > there is a "preferred cycle route" sign anywhere, or footway > otherwise. For footpaths on housing estates I'll probably have > highway=footway, foot=yes and also add cycle=no where there is a no > cycling sign. > Personally I think that there should be a way to tag differently, you definitely cannot take your bike on this path, like many gardens, and you need to dismount to continue the next section (usually signified by a "cyclists dismount" sign. This is why I like to use the bicycle=dismount tag. > I like the idea of designation= for distinguishing between these > paths on housing estates and the signs which are signposted "Public > Footpath" in England (and perhaps other UK nations) so if > OpenFootMap ever takes off they could perhaps be rendered > differently. Shaun > > Ed > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb