lonvia at denofr.de
Sun Aug 23 17:44:08 CEST 2009
sorry, for coming in so late in the discussion, just discovered the
new features page.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:05:43PM +0200, Stéphane Brunner wrote:
> > A way signed with 2.63 is a common foot- and cycleway with a
> > segregation between cyclists and pedestrian (at least a painted line,
> > sometimes a kerb stone). I would recommend to tag those as
> > highway=cycleway,foot=yes to support the fact that on those ways a
> > cyclist is not expected to find any pedestrian on "his" lane. And to
> > separte this case from 2.63.1
> I think that il should be one ot those:
> To me complete all other way without sign should me tagged as highway=path.
> and finally I think that your message should be added to this page :
I'm a bit upset by the footnote:
"Only ways with one of the blue signs may be tagged as highway=cycleway or highway=footway."
Datendelphin already mentioned the problem with this.
This is not at all how highway=cycleway and highway=footway are used at the
moment. I'd say that about 99% of the cycleways and footways I have mapped
came without a sign. And judging from the map I'm not the only one there.
Do you really want to resurvey all footways and cycleways in Switzerland
to reflect the change in meaning as indicated in the current features page?
Isn't it possible to describe blue signes sufficiently with additional
*=designated, *=yes and *=no and leave the footways and cycleway with
the current fuzzy meaning (i.e mainly used by pedestrians/cyclists, no
Basically, I would add the following tags to exclusive-use blue signs:
bike : bicycle=designated,foot=no
pedestrian : foot=designated,bicycle=no (bicycle=yes, if "Für Radfahrer frei")
and remove above comment.
More information about the talk-ch