Andy Allan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Ed Loach > <ed-vqwv6p3hcnr10xsdtd+...@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> 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 >> 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. > > This "designated" thing really hasn't been well thought through. How > do I tag the following? > > * A purpose built, private cycle path > * A purpose built, permissive foot path > * A path built for cyclists, with a legal right for pedestrians and cyclists
Both of the options you listed would seem to work (I'd use highway=path+access=private for the first, highway=path+foot=permissive for the second, and highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=yes for the third) > Now I'm not saying that cycleway/footway is a great tagging scheme, > but I sure wish that that the "designated" thing had been thought > through a bit more. We can come up with pathological cases for both methods. For "designated" it involves combining designated and permissive. For highway=*way it involves anything other than cyclists, pedestrians or equestrians, or any path intended for more than one of those. One guess as to which is more common and easier to map "on the ground". -Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb