On 10/23/2010 06:02 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> The wiki says: >> The example photos there support this. > > And the other pages say otherwise.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway both say "designated", too. > way footway/cycleway were used before path. If a way is legal (or > even "possible", think narrow urban stuff) only for pedestrians, > setting up or omitting any signs (not forbidding pedestrians, > naturally) doesn't make it anything else than a footway. Yes, for narrow, paved urban ways I'd say so, too. > Likewise ways > with a "no motor vehicles" sign are often cycleways - only pedestrians > and cyclists are allowed and do use them, even if a different sign > would imply otherwise a bit different traffic rules on those ways. I think using cycleway and footway (mainly, there will always be exceptions) for ways with signs (either the "pedestrian only", "cyclists only" or the "no motor vehicles") and path mainly for ways which are unpaved and smaller than tracks reflects the everyday usage of the terms best. This way the usage is intuitive for new users. And we don't need a new tag for trails. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
