On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Karl Eichwalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alex Mauer schrieb: > >> Of course. Obviously not all designated cycle routes are primarily >> designed for bicycles. My point was that poor physical condition of the >> surface of the route (possibly intentional in the case of a mountain >> biking route) cannot take away its designation as a route for bicycles. > > Thanks good to hear, but different what you proposed in the beginning. > In the beginning you proposed to tag those highway=cycleway, where > obviously "highway=footway bicycle=yes" or "highway=track" would be > more appropriate. > > Then put all these way into a cycle route relation and you are done. > The results will be nicely visible on Andy's cyclemap.
Yeah, having something which has more in common with a rocky staircase than a path marked as cycleway is clearly a bit silly. highway=mtb style suggestions sound reasonable to me. Incidentally, if you put network=mtb onto a route relation then it will popup on the cycle map in green: http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/?zoom=12&lat=6899819.25777&lon=-424589.12996&layers=B00 the actual ways can be anything as per other cycle routes. When cycling the area I linked to, I wasn't really paying much attention to mapping so I only have the route in this case, this could be improved a lot, mostly with foot paths and tracks. Better tagging suggestions welcome... especially if you have an area already tagged up to show it in use. Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
