On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM, John Smith<delta_foxt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > In other areas there are cycle paths and pedestrians are allowed but they > aren't the primary users intended to use the way and cyclists mostly use > them. So yes there would be information lost by simplifying things in the way > you describe.
Is tagging the "primary users intended to use the way" verifiable? If not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway necessarily the best way to tag it? (I'm unsure). How about a compromise, e.g. for a "cyclists mostly use" path: highway=path bicycle=designated (or yes, if not signed) foot=yes (or designated, if signed) primary_use=bicycle Just a suggestion. It does seem to be more explicit than inferring a "primary use" from the highway=* value. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
