Talk:Shared-use path

US and EU terminology compared
I don't think we may categorise US terminology as 'different' to EU terminology yet when we don't actually have any sources. [The Cheshire County Council link is dead. Cycling in the Netherlands says they don't have shared use. So we have one picture from one location in Germany.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But the ASHTO spec would describe the Milton Keynes redway system very well, apart from [ashto] having a better standard of signage. However, the redway system is still unusual in the UK, where painted bike lanes [or more likely nothing at all] on conventional roads are far more common. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Remind me where you saw "US terminology as 'different' to EU terminology" ? Also if I read the Netherlands article correctly, they generally have a separate pedestrian path wherever the cycle path is segregated.--agr (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, not this article. It's in segregated cycle facility. So, using the US meaning of the word moot, my point is moot. :-( I'll have to re-argue the question there.
 * re Netherlands, what I'm saying is that they don't have any shared paths so can't be given as an example as I had hoped. In actual fact, we don't yet have any documented examples outside the US. I'm still searching the web for some. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)