Roy Wallace wrote: > If I trace (from aerial imagery) a path that I'm pretty sure would be > great to ride on, and that appears to have been made nice and wide for > cyclists, could/should I tag this as highway=cycleway? I know that > pedestrians are probably welcome to walk on it as well (in Australia, > no one is going to kick a pedestrian off a bikeway like the one I am > referring to). > > Could/should I add an additional tag to clarify that I really don't > know the legal status/designation/whatever of the path? If yes, what > should that additional tag be? > > The current wiki definition of highway=cycleway is "mainly or > exclusively for bicycles". This I cannot be sure of from the aerial > imagery, nor can I of anything to do with the law. What to do... > > Hi Roy
The answer is No, don't tag it as a cycleway if you don't that it's a cycleway. Map what you see on the ground. If there's no sign or you don't have a document stating it as one, don't tag it. Remember with the cycleway tag we're stating it's legal status as a highway, not the suitability to use it as one (eg surface, width, steepness etc) Cheers Dave F. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
