On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 12:42, Ken Kilfedder <spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk> wrote: > highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as at > present. > highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at > present. > highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe > blue long dash interspersed with red short dash) > highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe > red long dash interspersed with blue short dash) > With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in > parallel with red - the right way round if possible.
Something like this would be a big step forwards IMO. "highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line" this one in particular. I'm with Richard https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 , highway=path is meaningless. I think highway=cycleway is something designed and built expressly for bicycles, typically smooth, wide, signed. Thus I'd mark a public footpath as highway=footway always, adding bicycle=designated if necessary (it is a footpath for pedestrians with added permission). Similarly, I'd mark a sidewalk as highway=footway, footway=sidewalk, adding bicycle=designatedy, segregated=no if it is a shared space (again, it is an area for pedestrians with added rights for bicycles). The tough case is a sidewalk with a segregated cycle lane (designed and built as such). I'd prefer highway=footway for all sidewalks, but the segregation implies highway=cycleway, segregated=yes, footway=sidewalk I don't think highway=path is much use at all really. Stephen _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
