On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:41 +0100, "Ian Spencer" <ianmspen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think "already by definition cycle-legal" is the very point I > am querying. The trouble with the Bicycle restrictions section is > that it falls at the first hurdle as nobody seems to have defined > (on an international basis remember) whether the use of trunk > implies bicycle=yes or no. I wouldn't want to cycle on the A42 > (perceived as a motorway), I have cycled along dual carriageways > around Redditch which are the same in OSM but quite different in > quality. The problems of an administrative definition rather than > a "on the ground" definition even though unless there is explicit > sign-age there is a legal right. This page defines the default access tags for each highway type in a number of countries: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions Though its currently lacking a section for the UK. I think the UK should be much the same as the global defaults, at least for the roads. The paths/bridleways/cycleways should be a bit different from the defaults, as access on foot is usually allowed on all of these. It should probably also be different for Scotland vs England & Wales etc due to the rather different the access laws. Though I don't know if there is any maps / routing software using these defined defaults anyway. Also, i think there are a few roads in the UK where cycling is banned, but they haven't been tagged as such (eg parts of the Edinburgh bypass?). I think it would be helpful if something like OpenCycleMap highlighted roads tagged with bicycle=no - it would make the missing bits more obvious, and might encourage people to map more of them. Craig -- Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
