Sven Grüner wrote: > Being considered a fanatical biker by my friends as well I share that > believe.
;-) > This worked fine when focussing on car-traffic but when we really want > to provide high-quility (usable for routing/navigation) data of footways > and cycleways I'm afraid we need a different approach. True. But it's hard to think of an abstraction, for something like ... "This is a highway with duty-to-use cycleways on either side, but the cycleway on the left side is mostly on a different level of height, has a paved surface and looses right of way on some crossings (because it slightly moves away from the main highway while there is no way to switch to the street before that). The other cycleway has an unpaved surface, is mostly oneway, except the part between somewhere and somewhereelse (and between ... and ... you are free to use either the street or the cycleway whereas on some parts the cycleway is incomplete or missing" (That was the description for my way to work and I have seen stuff like that all over Europe so far) > You're coming to tomorrows Stammtisch? yes. Bjørn _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
