<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/11/2014 10:30 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tagging-request@openstreetmap.org">tagging-request@openstreetmap.org</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.10645.1415057452.3429.tagging@openstreetmap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:14:11 +0900
From: johnw <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:johnw@mac.com"><johnw@mac.com></a>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"><tagging@openstreetmap.org></a>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:49514F61-BDF8-4B1B-84E8-0003DB60F284@mac.com"><49514F61-BDF8-4B1B-84E8-0003DB60F284@mac.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
AFIK - footway and path are more toward the width, surface, smoothness, maintenance level, and expected use of the way. a sidewalk often gets tagged as footpath, as would be a concrete walkway in a garden.
Paths are usually less maintained, less even, narrower, and lower grade surfaces.
footpath doesn’t imply horses=no, it implies cars=no.
to me path implies wheelchair=no.
if they are wide, well maintained, somewhat smooth and hard, and easily passible, then they are footpaths.
if it is a track for emergency access vehicles that is usually open for hiking, horses, and bikes, then label it is a track instead, cars=emergency or whatever that exact tag is.
horses can fit on pathways and paths (and pedestrian, for that matter) - I don’t think the trails you are talking about are exclusive horse paths (a bridleway) so it would just have access for horses added to the path, like bicycle access on a footway vs a Cycleway where the intended purpose is bicycle access.
Javbw
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big><br>
I'm afraid the difference between footway and path are not well
definded, overlap and can be tagged to be excatly the same. Thus
your and my confusion! </big><big>I take the view that footway
generally is paved + urban, paths are generally unpaved +
nonurban. If there is firm documented differences then they
should be made evident by the reduction in avalible tags for
each. For the moment at least you can chose what ever you like
... preferably the same as used near the area your are working
on. I have seen both tags used on similar features in the same
park by two different contributors, leading to confusion. So try
to keep it the same. Good Luck. <br>
<br>
Bicycle access on a footway I depreciate as the rendering is the
same, making the bicycle access tag useless. Thus I use
highway=cycleway with pedestrian=yes as that alerts users to the
bicyle aspect. <br>
<br>
I'm not aware of the rendering of bridal trails. But possibly
these too could benifit from the same teartment. </big></font><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>