Proposal talk:Foot cycleway

Not different from cycleway or path

In the traditional duck tagging in OSM, such ways are simply highway=cycleway, with optionally foot=designated - ways where you can and may cycle and walk, and you don't expect to meet other vehicles under normal circumstances. It looks like a cycleway, it acts like a cycleway and is used like a cycleway - cycleway not meaning "a bit of asphalt signposted for bicycles", but "a strip of surface you could say is a legal way for cycling and looks like that, too". The extra legal details don't change the basic attributes. The answer to "may I walk/cycle that way?" does not change between the ones meant in this proposal and the elements tagged as cycleways but which don't have such a sign, or have some other sign allowing cyclists but banning motorists. And besides, would a way with the traffic sign only at the other end qualify as foot_cycleway? Alv (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not need this tag

We do not need this tag because it is just another not backward-compatible tag for cycleways. The tagging ist already satisfyingly covered by highway=cycleway, highway=footway and highway=path plus their supplementary tags like foot=* and bicycle=*. These tags have been used at OSM for a very long time and are very important tags.

I suggest you to discontinue this proposal because it will never get accepted. --Nakaner (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)