Proposal talk:Cycleway

Don't you find bicycle="track" is sufficient ?

Or perhaps cycleway="track" would be better ?

FredB 11:42, 6 Jul 2006 (UTC)

To be honest i'm so used to looking at highway = "something" for roads, footpaths and bridleways, that I assumed that's where something to do with bikes would be. I hadn't noticed the bicyle = "track" features. Dmgroom 12:44, 6 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Whats up with the existing highway=cycleway? --Dean Earley 23:05, 11 Jul 2006 (BST)

One problem was : how to differenciate the differents sorts of cycleways ?

Another was : for a same way, we can't use 2 highway keys, for example for highway="secondary" and highway="cycleway".

FredB 23:17, 11 Jul 2006 (BST)

So what about it ? Would you prefer highway="cycleway" or cycleway="lane|track|opposite|opposite_lane|opposite_track" ? FredB 15:34, 3 Sep 2006 (BST)

Is this page still nessessery? Its seems to be on the standidsed features page is highway=cycleway, and then many things under the cycleway key, although no vote has been taken. I don't object, but should this page be transfered to the old proposals page? Ben. 18:04 18th Decemeber 2006

This has been here for a very long time. Highway=cycleway already exsists. The problem with not being able to use the highway key twice for the same way doesn'y matter as I see it. The difffernt phisical properties for a cycleway shouldn't be covered by the highway tag. If the access rules are different, additonal minor tags can clean up the ways accuracy. foot=no for example. After over 6 months I think this needs a vote. On the principle that the highway=cycleway tag already exists, shall we just vote that this page is nolonger nessesery for the proposed features page? Ben. 03:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)