On 11/08/2009 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > _When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists > on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way > was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one > couldn't know what others consider suitable, but I hold the view that > most people can relate to what others think, if they have ever ridden a > bicycle after childhood. The best example I've come up with so far is > that if your mother asked "should I cycle on it" you'd instantly know > the answer (most of the time anyway): > "definitively" (cycleway) or > "you could" (footway + bicycle=yes) or > "no, you shouldn't" (footway) So what about things like mountain bike trails, signed or otherwise? There's plenty that I wouldn't advise my mother to cycle on, but I wouldn't describe them as a footway. For some of them, it may be not recommended to walk along them.
And even if they are signed for mountain biking, I don't think its a good idea to tag idea it as a cycleway. Cycleway implies a reasonable quality surface and no extreme obstacles etc, and can be used on a 'normal' bike. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk