On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:34:20PM +0200, Chris66 wrote:
Am 20.07.2010 13:15, schrieb Marko Mäkelä:
It also occurs to me that highway=cycleway or highway=path&bicycle=designated implies foot=yes in the default style. That seems wrong to me;
Even if this is "wrong" in terms of Wiki, the foot=yes is often forgotten by mappers, so I think it's not a good idea to imply foot=no for cycleways.
You're right, it might not be a good idea to imply foot=no for highway=cycleway. Many mappers seem to be ignorant of the access tags, as well as surface=*, lit=yes/no, segregated=yes/no. In countries like NL or DE where there are regions with a well built "bicycle motorway" network, the highway=cycleway could really mean foot=no (and there would be a foot path nearby), but in other places, it usually implies foot=designated. It could be least ambiguous to abandon the highway=cycleway tagging altogether and use highway=path instead. JOSM seems to promote this, by rendering highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated as green-magenta lines. BTW, it can be an eye-opening experience to visit places where bicycling or walking is not that common. For example in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia (a flat country comparable to Denmark), there are few cycleways and you cannot expect to find a pedestrian crossing in every street corner. But as soon as you get out of the city, you don't really need cycleways: there is not too much traffic, and the motorists pass bicycles with a great distance. Marko