The problem - at least as I see it - is not so much with ways that have blue cycle signs (round or rectangular) - these are, as you say, pretty clear. There is more a problem with the quite widespread use of highway=cycleway for a way which is also a footpath / bridleway / vehicular road / farm track etc. - this seems to be happening quite often where the way in question forms part of a SusTrans designated cycle route (ncn or rcn). I still feel that these should be handled as a relation of type=route so that the highway tag (which is likely to differ widely along a ncn or rcn) can be used in its more standard and wider sense. We should aim to avoid selecting just one type of transport for the highway= tag on a multiuser route to avoid any conflict between different types of user/mapper. The fairly recent (to me at least) suggestion of the use of designation= tagging is helpful here - although there are now, inevitably, a lot of ways with highway=bridleway tags (by chance highway=footway does not present the same problem as 'footway' is a different word from 'footpath' - although the difference from highway=pedestrian is less clear - at least to me).
Mike Harris -----Original Message----- From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk] Sent: 24 March 2009 07:25 To: 'David Earl'; 'Mike Harris' Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; 'Richard Fairhurst' Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway > I think it is perfectly obvious in the UK, it's a cycleway if it has > the blue cycle sign indicating that a surface is permitted for cycling > when it otherwise not be. My highway code defines that sign with a round background as "Route to be used by pedal cycles only" - so I'd have thought highway=cycleway, foot=no. The rectangular background version "Recommended route for pedal cycles" is a little less clear, though I'd probably also use highway=cycleway depending what else the route was like. Ed _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
