<div dir="ltr">Some thoughts from cyclist perspective.<br>I personally not using the (highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated) combination for shared foot- and cycleways. <br>  <br> 1) If I change a cycleway to path, I will unintentionally enable access for equestrians on the highway (according to this table:<br> <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Hungary">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Hungary</a>)<br> So I need to add an additional 'horse=no' tag to highway=path<br> <br> 2) The iD Editor doesn't know the shared foot and cycleways, it only displays the highway as a classic 'path' category, just like a forest path. <br> Result: some iD users begins to change highway=path back to highway=cycleway or highway=footway in urban environment.<br> <br> 3) As already mentioned by many, without the surface tag the highway=path could become meaningless. Some routing engine interprets<br> highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated as an unpaved path, while interpreting highway=cycleway as a paved road (correctly)<br> Result: some bicycle routers begins to avoid shared foot- and cycleways tagged with highway=path w/o surface.<br> I know we are not mapping for the outputs, but the cycleways works nearly perfect while the path does not. Why do we change?<br> <br>So I need to add two additional tags for the same result without any advantages.<br><br>highway=cycleway           <br>foot=designated                    <br>segregated=yes             <br>                           <br>highway=path                           <br>foot=designated                                                           <br>bicycle=designated <br>horse=no <br>surface=asphalt<br><br>Best regards,<br>András</div>