On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:16 PM Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a > cycleway. I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times over > the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific purpose. > On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist. I also just > visited the websites for the various entities that manage the trail, and > there is no indication I could find that it was built for a single purpose. > It is a general recreation trail. I suspect the "cycleway" tag was used so > that it would show up in some cycling specific renderer... but I can't say > that for sure.
I wound up creating both 'bicycle' and 'hiking' route relations for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/306742 (cycle) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5166476 (foot). It looks as if most of the constituent ways are tagged `highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated`. It's definitely multi-purpose as the 'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail' name suggests. (I'm very familiar with it, since a short bit of it is part of my daily commute.) Waymarked Trails finds the foot and cycling routes, and OpenCycleMap finds the cycling route, so at least some data consumers were able to figure this one out, despite not having ways tagged specifically 'footway' or 'cycleway'. If someone wants to distinguish a dirt singletrack from a paved cycleway, I'd suggest `surface=*` and `width=*`. I don't understand the urban-rural discussion at all. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
