[cc:ed to tagging@, suggest follow-ups go there] Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > +1, in Germany or Italy you will hardly find any place where a > pedestrian can't pass but a cyclist can. There will be either a > combined or segregated foot/cycleway instead of a bicycles only > cycleway. On the contrary there are much more places where pedestrians > get precedence over cyclists (e.g. narrow spots will most probably get > something like "cyclists dismount!")
You mean like this? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September2007.htm :) The whole highway=cycleway farrago is another sad indictment of the wiki tagging mess. It originally meant "bikes and pedestrians" (as you'd expect for a tagging scheme devised in the UK), then someone took it on themselves to change the docs without telling anyone. Consequently which you use basically depends on whether you, or the author of the tools/documentation you use, read the wiki before or after. I could see some benefit to splitting the tag into two - say, highway=cycle for "bikes only", highway=cycle+foot for "bikes and pedestrians" - and doing (whisper it) a mass change along country lines. Unlike the highway=trunk/primary/secondary country defaults, which are a sensible response to having to tag minutiae, the current situation with highway=cycleway helps neither mappers nor data consumers. (And no, not the horrible user-hostile highway=path scheme.) cheers Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
