<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/08/2015 11:30, johnw wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:EA57BD89-FACF-4FA8-9DB5-B20DC01E756C@mac.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">From all the history, it looks like path was made to
show some kind of mixed use way that footway was not good at -
for mapping useful but unpaved and irregular pathways - trails,
tracks, etc. A guy was pushing for this as useful for horses, I
think. </div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
My understanding (and it is only that - I'd welcome more definitive
evidence or the recollection of someone who's been around longer) is
that "footway", "bridleway" and "cycleway" were originally for
"physical characteristics match a use type of X". So a typical
highway=cycleway is constructed so that a bicycle can easily travel
along it; a typical highway=footway may not be. In Germany these
terms were mapped onto specific roadsigns, with "cycleway" mapped
onto "cycle only" cycleways (something that's rare in the UK) and
leaving a gap for "both bicycles and pedestrians" ones (which is
normal in the UK). "highway=path" came along and filled the gap,
with the access tags replaced by signage information, with "yes" or
"permissive" in the access tag changed to "designated"(1).<br>
<br>
We are where we are with tag usage worldwide - in addition to e.g.
path vs cycleway we've already seen in the parallel discussion how
highway=path and highway=footway mean something different in
Norway(2) compared to e.g. England and Wales. Renderers have to do
the best job they can of this. Users changing "highway=footway" to
"highway=path" (as happened in response to the recent attempt to
change the wiki page of "footway") without changing other tags just
removes information from the map.<br>
<br>
FWIW I don't believe that:<br>
<pre wrap="">"The current definition ("minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively
by pedestrians") is not specific in providing definite distinctive features
between footway and path"
</pre>
is actually a problem at all. In the absense of signage, whether
something is e.g. a bridleway or a footway is always going to be a
value judgement (Are there wide gates rather than stiles? Is the
clear height to overhanging trees enough for a horse+rider? Is
there "evidence that the path has been used by horses recently" on
the ground?).<br>
<br>
If you don't know (perhaps you're mapping from imagery alone) then
highway=path might be useful as a "vague generic basket" (to borrow
Richard Mann's term) but following survey in most cases in many
countries you'd be able to provide more detail than that(3). <br>
<br>
As to "highway=footpath", I can only offer the obligatory:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://xkcd.com/927/">https://xkcd.com/927/</a><br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
<br>
(1) For example, how do I tag a way that's designed mostly for horse
traffic but is actually only horse=permissive without using
highway=bridleway?<br>
<br>
(2)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-127129167">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-127129167</a><br>
<br>
(3) In addition to surface, width, legal access, tracktype,
smoothness, sac_scale, mtb:scale etc. that also help to provide more
information.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>