At 04:53 PM 7/3/2008, Andy Allan wrote: >On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I certainly agree that the default for foot access should be one or > > the other for highway=cycleway. > > > > My own preference is for default foot=yes. > >I disagree - I think the default should be undefined. After all, it's >been undefined for a while, and I don't like hidden assumptions that >will be wrong for entire countries.
Yes, I see your point. A lot of my thinking centres around ease of data entry and the fact that when a lot of tags have to be entered, folks ... don't. I take a default as a reasonable but not certain assumption. I wonder what our routing fraternity has to say. >I've been asked by a cycling group how they should be marking shared >vs segregated, so how about > >highway=cycleway, cycleway = shared - both bikes and pedestrians >sharing the same path, common in the UK. Has the blue sign with the >bike over the pedestrians. >highway=cycleway, cycleway = segregated - the path has a line down the >middle, cyclists on one side, pedestrians on the other >highway=cycleway, cycleway = cycleonly - bikes only, like the >default in Germany I'd support that. One practical data entry question. If I haven't noted whether it is shared or segregated, go back to cycleway=track, foot=yes ... or? Tracks often switch from one to the other frequently. >... but to be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with it, and I >still think the lane/lane_opposite doesn't handle things fully either. >I found a bit in Hyde Park where there was a one-way road with cycle >lanes on both sides - with all three lanes going in the same direction >- and I don't know how to model that in OSM either. Well, I've commented on the rest, so let me take a stab. cycleway=lane. Does it matter that there happen to be two such lanes and their position? Mike _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
