<div dir="ltr">Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path, 10% footway.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt <<a href="mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com">phil@wyatt-family.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as<br>
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')<br>
<br>
Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe try<br>
it o your local parks<br>
<br>
<a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus</a><br>
<br>
Cheers - Phil<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au" target="_blank">forster@ozonline.com.au</a> <<a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au" target="_blank">forster@ozonline.com.au</a>> <br>
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM<br>
To: Phil Wyatt <<a href="mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com" target="_blank">phil@wyatt-family.com</a>><br>
Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' <<a href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.harvey4@gmail.com</a>>; 'talk OSM Australian List'<br>
<<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit<br>
prohibition of bicycles.<br>
<br>
But I could be wrong<br>
<br>
Tony<br>
<br>
> Thanks folks,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the <br>
> ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing <br>
> strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz <br>
> Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where there <br>
> is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as something like <br>
> the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split from path to <br>
> footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so <br>
> it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers - Phil<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: Andrew Harvey <<a href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.harvey4@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM<br>
> To: talk OSM Australian List <<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt <<a href="mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com" target="_blank">phil@wyatt-family.com</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com" target="_blank">phil@wyatt-family.com</a>> > wrote:<br>
><br>
> Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use <br>
> do not use <<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway</a>> <br>
> highway= <<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway</a>> <br>
> footway and the preference is <br>
> <<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway</a>> highway= <br>
> <<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath</a>> path, but <br>
> the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the <br>
> differentiation?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my <br>
> view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for <br>
> use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with <br>
> no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway <br>
> with this view.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and <br>
> remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that <br>
> view is outdated now.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32, <<a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au" target="_blank">forster@ozonline.com.au</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au" target="_blank">forster@ozonline.com.au</a>> > wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi<br>
><br>
> I assumed that<br>
> highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not <br>
> allow bicycles<br>
><br>
> highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not <br>
> allow pedestrians<br>
><br>
> and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still <br>
> remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but <br>
> which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use <br>
> for.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data <br>
> consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>