User talk:Eimai/Belgian Roads
The proposed scheme is a disaster for cyclists. There are several thousands of dedicated cycleways (I mean the ones which do not run as bicycle lanes or tracks along a road for motorised traffic, but are completely separate). Signalisation is endlessly varied. Most frequent are different kinds of access restricting signs or contraptions like bollards. Only very few of these carry one of the D7, D8 or D9 signs. For instance, none of the Walloon RAVeLs (long distance routes dedicated for bicycles, often newly constructed) I have used had such signs. Nevertheless use of highway=cycleway is restricted to D7, D8, D9 roads. Using this scheme means that the vast majority of dedicated cycleways with no or only sporadic motor traffic will be tagged as highway=path and will be indistinguishable from `real' paths where cycling is allowed but not possible with a standard bike. Since it will be years before sufficient detailed tagging on surface quality and smoothness will be present to make the distinction I propose that we stick to the international standard for cycleways.
- And as said before, we don't map for the renderer to make you have nice blue dotted lines on the mapnik rendering for all the paths you deem suited well enough for cycling. We're making a geographical database, not anything else. If you think the rendering is a disaster for cyclists, you should make your own one. But yeah, we can only do that if we tag everything well. Btw, I'm pretty sure a lot of the roads you're tagging cycleway are permitted to be used by horse drivers as well, why aren't you tagging them bridleway then? The map is such a disaster for horse riders! (previous sarcasm due to "me vs. I do not want to argue" discussion via personal messages) --Eimai 10:59, 8 September 2012 (BST)