On 25. Juli 2015 01:36 Troxel [mailto:[email protected]] wrote: >Volker Schmidt <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hmmm. >> There is a problem. >> We (cyclists) would like to be able to distinguish between ways that >> can be used legally by bicycle, and >> 1) that do not have any traffic sign saying this and >> 2) those where there is some kind of traffic sign saying explicitly >> that this way can be used by cyclists > >If that's what you want, map the signs. If a way can be legally used, >then it shoudl be tagged as such, whether that's by observing signs or >reading the law.
My thoughts exectly. >> I assumed that this was the difference between >> 1) bicycle=yes >> and >> 2) bicycle=designated > >No. bicycle=designated is an official notion that bicycles are someone >more authorized than cars or foot and are to be considered the primary >use of a way. An example would be a path that had signs saying that >while pedestrians are allowed, they must yield to bikes. +1 >> Your proposal is well intended, but would water down the meaning of >> "designated" and would make it equal to the simple "yes" > >That was my concern as well. Designated needs some sense of an >official notion of primacy. That's not my intention. I agree that a designated path needs some sort of (official) legitimation but the a traffic sign should not be the only criteria. Hubert _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
