My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general opinion is that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either designed/intended for bicycles or specifically designated (signposted) for bicycles, irrespective of if it's an urban track or mountain biking track.
So a mountain bike track and an urban cycle track should both be tagged with highway=cycleway as the primary tag. surface= and smoothness= can help for both to help guide users on which kind of bicycle the track is suitable for, and mtb:scale=/mtb:scale:imba= are used to indicate this is a designated mountain biking track. highway=path is specifically for a general use / unspecified path, which a mountain biking track may be if it's informal/shared, but purpose built and signposted mountain bike tracks don't fall into that category. A similar thing applies to hiking tracks, sometimes they are designated walking paths so use highway=footway + surface + sac_scale, but sometimes they are just an unmarked or mixed use path so are highway=path + surface + sac_scale. Open to other opinions or comments. On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 18:56, Phyks <ph...@phyks.me> wrote: > Hi, > > A discussion in CyclOSM issue tracker [1] spotted that there exists > around 3500 highway=cycleway around the world which have specific > mountain bikes (MTB) tags. In particular, around 800 highway=cycleway > around the world declare a mtb:scale greater than 2, which would make > them impassable without a proper mountain bike. Such cycleways would not > be passable with a regular city bike. One example of such a case is at [2]. > > Looking at the wiki page [3], > "the highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way for the use of cyclists" > which does not mandate explicitly that a cycleway be accessible with any > kind of bikes and should also cover dedicated paths for MTB. However, > the documentation around cycleways and bike features is very oriented > towards city cycling and there is no illustration about MTB-specific > cycleways. > > So, is this considered a valid tagging or should it be represented by > another highway class (path, track, etc)? If this is valid, I propose to > add a statement in the wiki explicitly mentioning that cycleways can be > restricted for specific kinds of bicycles, for future questions. > > Best, > > [1] https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/issues/208 > [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86978431#map=17/41.26426/-73.91907 > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway > > -- > Phyks > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
