In your letter dated Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:16:15 +0200 you wrote: > >> highway=cycleway;foot=yes >> >> used to work very well before highway=path has been introduced. What has >> changed that? > >I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians allowed" > >by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was >not quite a "pedestrian only" case. > >The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in >belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed : >- bicycle >- pedestrian >- skate boards >- roller blades >- pedestrian with dogs >- wheel chair >- small plastic cars for children >etc. > >Will anyone tag this : >highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes;.... ? > >Will anyone tag this : >highway=rollerway;foot=yes;cycleway=yes;... ?
Well, in .nl, skate boards, roller blades, etc. are all considered pedestrians. So, unless OSM wants to introduce those categories, there is only the issue of whether the default access rules for routing programs should allow pedestrians on cycleways or not. Just for reference, in .nl cycleways are indicated by http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Verplicht%20fietspad.png (though http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Onverplicht%20fietspad.png and http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Fiets-%20en%20bromfietspad.png an issue) And there is nothing 'so called' about those cycleways. just like there is nothing 'so called' about primary roads when there is no sidewalk and people are just walking on the road (with or without skate boards, roller blades, or small plastic cars). _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
