>He wasn’t saying that bicycle=designated is always a sharrow, but that a >sharrow is effectively the same thing as a sign saying “bike route”. >They’re both ways of marking something as a designated route for bicycles.
I don't agree with this. A single isolated road could have a sharrow, but wouldn't be part of a "route". > Now, Steve (and Mike), what's wrong (if anything) with > bicycle=designated; sharrow=yes? It doesn't really fit with my understanding of "bicycle=designated". I understand that tag as meaning "yes, bicycles are definitely permitted here, and there is signage or legislation to prove it". With very few exceptions, bicycles are allowed on all roads, so any "highway=tertiary, bicycle=designated" seems a misfit. You also open up the question, shouldn't it be "bicycle=designated; cycleway=lane" as well? I think bicycle=designated only makes sense in questions of doubt: highway=footway, highway=path, etc. Whereas, cycleway=sharrow fits in very neatly: cycleway=track cycleway=lane cycleway=sharrow cycleway=no Four different indications of cycling infrastructure on public roads: Exclusive lane protected from cars, exclusive lane not protected, non-exclusive lane, no lane at all. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
