--- On Mon, 10/8/09, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The English-language page suffered from enthusiastic > editing by people who thought path might lead to > footway/cycleway ceasing to be required (unlikely). And the > result does need tidying up. This came up on talk-au list, also with no definite agreement. Although that was mostly about path v cycleway, but there are signs depicting bicycles on cycleways. :) _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
- [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Tom Chance
- Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Elena of Valhalla
- Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Richard Mann
- Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. foot... John Smith
- [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Martin Simon
- Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. ... John Smith
- Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path ... Martin Simon
- Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of ... Marc Schütz
- [OSM-talk] Fwd: Proliferati... Martin Simon
- Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of ... Martin Koppenhoefer
- Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation... Alex Mauer
- Re: [OSM-talk] Prolifera... Liz
- Re: [OSM-talk] Prolifera... Alex L. Mauer
- Re: [OSM-talk] Prolifera... John Smith