2009/8/12 Nop <ekkeh...@gmx.de>: > > Hi! > > Lauri Kytömaa schrieb: >> _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. > > This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the > German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are > having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk > on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be > suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it > is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestrian).
+1. Which means you have to tag it with foot=* anyway, so why not (in future) recommend consistently using highway=path with foot=* and bicycle=* etc. And Lauri, I have no idea what you would consider "suitable for the common cyclist". Please, at least write the criteria down. And yes, I have ridden a bicycle after childhood. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
