On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:40:13 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Anthony >> <o...@inbox.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Johnson >>> <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: >>>> The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the >>>> bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to >>>> bicycles, but lacks shoulders and has narrow lanes or on-street >>>> parking, then I tag it bicycle=destination (unless it qualifies for >>>> cycleway=lane). >>> >>> Please don't do that. >> >> Agreed. *=destination means local traffic only; I've removed the tag. > > Please stop doing that. While the cycle network is not fully mapped in > the area, impeding it's progress by reverting routes that are local only > because there is an immediately adjacent cycleway or bicycle boulevard > under Oregon law ORS 814.420 is not helpful or necessary.
I must point out that you made no mention in your original post about there being "an immediately adjacent cycleway or bicycle boulevard". That makes all the difference. (And in fact, you said the streets are "open to bicycles".) I apologize for not being more clear. By "please don't do that" I do not mean to "revert all instances of Paul using bicycle=destination". I hope you will take a look at your uses of bicycle=destination yourself, and self-revert any places where you were "stretching the limits". _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
