To the extent it's been documented, let's refer to the Wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway
In this case, the photo of a "cycle track" is narrow like a path, with a stripe
going up the middle.
Now, my turn to make subjective distinctions :) ...
I'd mark something a "highway=cycleway, cycleway=track" if a seperate path is
primarily used by bicycles, and is used as a regular transportation artery. In
other word - paths going through town that people bicycle commute on -
Guadalupe River Trail, Los Gatos Creek Trail, Highway 237 trail - would be
marked this way. Walking paths through parks, mountain bike trails up in the
mountains - thoses would be paths. At least, that's how I'd make the
distinctions. I can't think of any "bicycle paths" where pedestrians aren't
allowed, and don't legally have the right of way.
I think it's important to not let the current rendering schemes of the normal
mapnik style or cyclemap dictate these distinctions. Rendering styles can be
changed in minutes; data takes ages to modify. The data should be focused on
describing the condition on the ground.
(Having said that, I think I'll remove the "forward" setting on many of the
elements I had marked up as a "type=route, route=bicycle, network=lcn"
relations, when the direction is implied, and it's seperate carriageways on a
boulevard. Cyclemap rendered last night, and it makes it look like one-way
roads if you zoom out.)
A lot of these distinctions are easily arguable. The feature wiki should be
fleshed out a bit with example photos, and best practices definitions. In
Potlatch, if you draw a line with no attributes, and click on the little
"attribute icon" that changes from a car, to a pedestrian, to a bike, etc, and
go for the "cycle track" preset, it creates a combination of "highway=cycleway"
and "cycleway=track". combination. The ready presence of this combination is
why I've tended to use it often - presets are a way of getting people to enter
data in a standard way. Perhaps we could request some extensions to the
potlatch presets as a way to encourage standard practices.
-Alan
________________________________
From: Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: David Carmean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:35:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
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
