On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:15 AM, David Carmean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 05:27:44PM -0800, Scott Atwood wrote: > > ... > > > Multi-Use Paths (a.k.a. Class I). This one is also pretty easy. I tag > > these as {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}. However, one > wrinkle > > is that these MUPs sometimes have have sections with an on-street > alignment. > > In that case, I added a relation to the entire MUP, both the off-street > > trail portions, and the on-street alignments, that was tagged like > > {route=bicycle, type=route, name=_name_of_the_MUP_}. I intentionally > left > > off the network tag from the relation, since this isn't part of a formal > > route network per se, but if anything, it would be {network=lcn} > > How did you decide upon this scheme? I've been working on sections of the > SF Bay Trail, some of which even allow horses. I've been tagging these > primarily as {highway=path|track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes|no, > surface=paved|gravel|dirt}. The choice of "path" or "track" has been a > little > imprecise. > Your scheme seems better. A multi-use path is exactly what highway=path was intended for. It's not primarily for any mode of transportation, but pedestrians, bicycles and sometimes horses are all allowed. As for path vs. track, I think of track as something like a fire road or similar, something that is occasionally used by wheeled vehicles, usually with special permission. Karl
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us