Talk:Tag:highway=cycleway
highway=cycleway + cycleway=?
I don't come up with a reason to use cycleway= with highway=cycleway. A way tagged as highway=cycleway already means that it is separate from any road so tagging cycleway=track is redundant. Also the other values for cycleway= are needed only when a way is tagged as highway=primary/secondary/(or other highway mainly for cars). The only use I came up with is a very rare case of highway=cycleway + motorcar=(yes/permissive/...) and bicycles have a separate lane (cycleway=lane) or the way is a one way street for cars (cycleway=opposite + oneway=yes). In what other situations does cycleway= with highway=cycleway give extra information? --PetskuH 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
maximum speed
Although for most drivers not attainable, some might be able to cycle fast enough to go faster than the possible speed limit applicable to bicycles. Some countries limit speeds for all vehicles, bicycles included, and apparently in some countries speed limits don't apply to cyclists. Also, in some countries a speed limit posted on the road right next to a cycleway applies to the cycleway also.
| Country | General speed limit for bicycles specifically | National limit applies | Speed limit applies when cycling on the road | Speed limit of the road applies when cycling on a cycleway next to a road | National limit for cycling on ways shared with pedestrians |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finland | No | Yes, 50/80 km/h | Yes | Yes | No |
| Germany | No | No | No | No | Yes |
"Mainly or exclusively"
I can see from the history of the page that the wording was fought over last summer. But the end result is not correct (and indeed contradicts itself).
I'd have said it was more accurate to say that cycleways indicate corridors that are mainly or exclusively for cyclists and pedestrians.
Where they are used for ways that are mainly or exclusively for cyclists only, this should either be the norm for that country (as set out in access-restrictions), or be indicated by the addition of a tag foot=no. In either situation, an alternative way for pedestrians should be shown if one exists (this may merely be the footway implied by an adjacent road).
--RichardMann 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
