On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > So, what's your definition of "cycleway"? > > Do you mean the tag, or the reality? I'm asking what you think the definition within the wiki ought to be. Liz gave one, "a way which is free of bicycle obstructions". I don't think it was a good one - even if you ignore ways which allow motor vehicle traffic, and ways which prohibit bicycles, that definition still would include far too many areas where bicycle traffic is only a small fraction compared to pedestrian traffic. 3) bike path/multiuse path. Generally long, smooth, few obstructions, > and frequently with an actual name (as opposed to other paths that > never have names, only destinations). > Can we get a definition without the word "generally" in it? "Smooth, few obstructions, legal for bicycles, and predominantly used by bicycles." I could accept that. But without the "predominantly used by bicycles"? I have a lot of trouble calling every paved sidewalk in my neighborhood a "cycleway". Honestly, there's no difference > between a multi use path and a bike path, except perhaps width and > legalities. > So doesn't that render "the cycleway=* tag pretty much useless"?
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
