<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater Hobart’ as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it in a ‘park’ of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 28 January 2022 10:25 AM<br><b>To:</b> Phil Wyatt <phil@wyatt-family.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Tony Forster <forster@ozonline.com.au>; talk OSM Australian List <Talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path, 10% footway.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt <<a href="mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com">phil@wyatt-family.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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" 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" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway</a>> <br>> highway= <<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway" 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" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway</a>> highway= <br>> <<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath" 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><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>