I must admit that I do not fully understand your text. My interpretation of your questions is:
1) How would you tag the segregated cycle-and-foot-way shown in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg ? My answer: highway=path; foot=designated; bicycle=designated; segregated=yes. In addition you may want to specifcy which side is the the footway and which side is the cycleway by lanes=2 and bicycle:lanes=yes|no and foot:lanes=no|yes 2) How would you tag the way shown in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg, if there where no blue traffic sign? Answer: As there would be no indication on what kind of traffic is allowed I would tag it as highway=unclassified 3) How would you tag the segregated cycle-and-foot-way shown in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg My answer: exactly as in case (1) for the cycle-and-foot-way and in addition bicycle=use_sidepath on the street On 13 April 2015 at 23:36, Hubert <sg.fo...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hallo. > > > > Sorry for not answering for a while. I had/have to concentrate on my > studies. > > As for bicycle=obligatory/mandatory, I can see why there is so much > objection for introducing a new value, but I still think that the current > use of bicycle=official/designated/yes is less optimal than it could be. > > If some you feels up for it, I would like to hear your thoughts on the > following separated cycle way >>with and without<< the corresponding > traffic sign. ( > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg > ) > > The way I see it, it is “official” and “designated” for cyclist in both > cases, at least from the wording. However, the question remains whether it > should also be tagged as “bicycle=official/designated” or “bicycle=yes” or > something else. > > I would also like to ask you to considered the “normal” situation ( > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg) > in the same way and in comparison to the stand-alone cycle way. > > > > Yours, > > Hubert > > > > *From:* Hubert [mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de] > *Sent:* Freitag, 27. März 2015 23:57 > *To:* 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' > *Subject:* [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory > > > > Hallo fellow mappers and bicycle enthusiasts, > > I have created a proposal to tag obligatory roadside cycle ways with > bicycle=obligatory. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage > > The proposals is in its early stages right now, but I would like to get > your ideas and comments already. > > This value can be interpreted as an counterpart to bicycle=use_sidepath. > > As this tag would replace bicycle=designated in a quite a few cases, I am > hoping for a lot of support from the community. > > Happy mapping > > Hubert > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
