David Earl wrote: > The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road > > bridleway > cycleway > footway loosely speaking. Unless there is > evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't > use cycleways.
Sort of. There are actually two fairly important exceptions to the bridleway > cycleway rule (this is getting a bit UK rights-of-way geeky, sorry everyone). A bridleway is available to cyclists but there is no obligation on the land-owner to maintain it for cyclists. Cyclists are also required to give way to other users. http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4678 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/Info%20sheets/ff27.pdf A "cycle track", however (as declared by a Cycle Tracks Order) confers an obligation on the local highway authority to maintain it for cyclists. As best as I can see, there is no formally expressed priority of use. So in this case cycleway actually > bridleway. This is kind of what I like about the designation= tag. The Oxford example is maintained by the local highway authority as a cycleway. So it quacks like a cycleway, looks like a cycleway, but is legally a... bridleway. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway sums this up concisely. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
