On 10/09/2009, at 8:32 PM, David Earl wrote: > Therein lies the problem with each of these debates that comes up > every couple of months - while everyone would agree* that cycleways > accommodate cyclists, the rules vary around the world about what > else is allowed by default. > > I don't see why we can't have a convention/system that copes with > this, but people have tied themselves in huge knots over this in the > last year.
Most of the arguments I saw in the previous debate stemmed from two questions: * If a path can be used by both cyclists and pedestrians but has no signage (or has signage for both), should it be footway or cycleway? * What does *=designated actually mean? I think the first question mostly was the cyclists wanting cycleway and the non-cyclists wanting footway. Both ways are perfectly valid, and I can't see either being picked without flipping a coin. I won't talk about my opinion on the second, in the hope that we won't have another argument, look at the archives if you care. The big problem here is that the different groups have actively been using the alternative meanings, so we'd need to go back and edit a lot of data to make it consistent with whatever eventually gets chosen. Of course, not having a consistent meaning is worse than having to edit the data. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
