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.
There's no such thing as an "immediately adjacent" bicycle boulevard; there's going to be at least one block between. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
