+1
Mike Harris -----Original Message----- From: Nop [mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:43 To: Roy Wallace Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Hi! Roy Wallace schrieb: > If "footway/cycleway is fuzzy" in terms of current usage (and I > believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that > "designated" mean "signed". This stays true to "mapping what is on the > ground", and separates legal issues from geographical/physical > features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the > current usage of "designated" (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, > in Australia you may be "legally" allowed to ride a bicycle on a > footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as > "bicycle=designated". You can often "legally" ride a bike on an > Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with > "bicycle=designated". Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: Designated means designated by the government. But in this approach, ways that are just waymarked as a route are _not_ designated. A cycle route often runs on a tertiary highway, but that doesn't make the highway a designated cycleway. bye Nop _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk