Proposal:Access: designated
| This proposal has been obsoleted by highway=path. |
Superseded, as noted in page version 109835.
| Access:designated | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Obsoleted (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Alv |
| Tagging: | *=designated |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2008-03-27 |
Rationale
Provide a method to indicate that a route is designated as intended for a particular use, as opposed to such use merely being allowed.
Past proposals and discussions have shown it to be a welcome addition, that we could differentiate between, for example cycleways where pedestrians are tolerated (or vice versa) vs. light traffic ways marked per traffic signs as combined cycle and footway, where both users have equal rights. These combined ways would then be tagged highway=cycleway foot=designated vs. the current, but not known enough, method of highway=cycleway foot=yes. Other possible combinations could be highway=footway snowmobile=designated.
Relation to other proposals
This proposal does not in any way impede other proposals for miscellaneous trails (snowmobile, hiking, skiing or whatever), but has been derived from discussions on those proposals.
(Also an idea was raised to include a value for implying that a lane within this way is reserved for the method of travel named, but it can be addressed later, once there's a global scheme for specifying attributes and uses for different lanes. Some of the combined cycle and footways have distinct lanes and others are open for both for their whole width.)
Applies to
Usage
This proposal adds one core value designated to existing keys and amends the definition of the value yes:
| value | Definition |
|---|---|
| designated | designed to support this method of travel and marked as such |
| yes | physically feasible and not specifically forbidden (neither by law nor street signs, nor by land owner where possible) |
Deprecates
Nothing.
Since it has been mentioned that some UK countryside footways ought to have foot=yes, they could be more suitably tagged with foot=designated. Comments on this?
Rendering
No change.
Comments
Please use the talk page - some discussion from older proposals concerning this have been moved there.
Voting
Voting will open after the RFC period.