logo separator

[mkgmap-dev] Foot access on cycleways

From Marko Mäkelä marko.makela at iki.fi on Mon Jul 26 19:50:03 BST 2010

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 07:44:19AM +0200, Martin Simon wrote:
>> Using path-tag for cycleways would loose some information about the 
>> road type. I think most real paths (where you can cycle) are much 
>> different from real cycleways. I'd assume most paths to be narrow and 
>> probably surface=earth. I'd not assume that for a cycleway.
>No, highway=path doesn't mean "narrow foot path in the woods, orcs 
>lurking behind the trees", it can be any minor way (think "smaller than 
>track") and can have any surface.
>The whole point is to have a way-type without much implications that 
>can represent "footway/cycleway/bridleway" and any other way types with 
>and without designation for one or more modes of transport, using the 
>*=designated or *=official tags.

Right, I hope that we can deprecate highway=cycleway and use 
highway=path with the (varying) implicit assumptions spelled out: 
lit=yes/no, segregated=yes/no, bicycle=yes/no/designated/official, 
foot=yes/no/designated/official, surface=paved/unpaved/.... Then 
rendering, translation or routing tools will not need to make any 
educated guesses.

If you think that highway=path is misleading for a cycleway, then think 
about highway=steps. Stairs are quite different from highways. :-)


More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list