>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)
For the "unsigned way assumed to be suitable for cycling", but with no definite legal right, I would use "bicycle=permissive". In other words the assumption is that the owner of the path/land does not mind cyclists using it. Then, if it turns out that they do mind, we can change it to bicycle=no. I would apply a similar approach to paths too. I have no idea of exactly what the German law is on this, but when I was in the Schwarzwald last month, the paths/tracks in the forest were either waymarked by yellow/red/blue diamonds, or not waymarked at all (apart from the occasional "Betreten verboten"). I have not got round to marking these up yet, but my intention (German users, please feel free to tell me otherwise!) would be to tag the waymarked paths as highway=path|track; foot=designated and the unwaymarked tracks as highway=track; foot=permissive if I saw evidence of use e.g. someone walking along one, or simply highway=track if I literally didn't know whether the track was OK to use or not. (I would do the same in the uk) Nick _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
