<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I'm sorry, it's really nice that each one interprets things like
he wants, but official rules are there to avoid issues, especially
in subtle cases (like current case, as already mentioned) and to
avoid individual <u><b>interpretations</b></u>.</p>
<p>In the meantime, I saw a lot of inconsistencies in the previous
exchanges, while you definitely did not take into account the
elements I shared, which are based and, AGAIN, have been
confronted to the official rules.</p>
<p>Read again the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Paths">main
definitions</a>, they are CLEAR. Especially the usage of a path
and recommandations.</p>
<p>You don't like the use of footways, that's really sad, but I
RESPECT THE RULES. A path is NOT to use in the cases I mentioned,
like confirmed by the usage rules that are OFFICIAL, link here
above.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Contradictions (non-exhaustive list):</p>
<p> - You claim it's cheating on rules for rendering purpose. But
you recognize the rendering is not different between a path and a
footway.</p>
<p> - You rely on a never-ending draft, while official rules have
precedence and are CLEAR. The draft itself, which has not come to
an official rule change for years and introduce some confusions
(this one, among others), which you make use of to torn things in
the way you would like things to be. But rules are rules and are
there for good reasons. When you tell "must be understood as",
"interpret like" or the likes, you are directly demonstrating the
lack of understanding of why rules exist.<br>
</p>
<p> - You claim a path must be used, while the official definition
of a path, and the recommended usage CLEARLY tells it's a footway.</p>
<p> - You make distinction between roads (secondary vs residential,
motorway vs secondary) and track vs path, but you cannot make a
distinction between a path and a footway, which is clearly a
bigger/clearer gap, much clearer than track vs path, which are
often difficult to distinct for on site.</p>
<p> - You "don't see why", so it does not exist. Go to sites on see!
Rules are there for good reasons. NOTE: When someone insist on the
fact something is subtle and complex, rejecting without even
considering the case/reason is error prone.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Particularly sad to see how OSM is turning against itself, like
often with community projects. After having <strike>spent</strike>
wasted hundreds of hours to clean the mess it was in many parts,
in RESPECT OF THE RULES even when I didn't like them, I come to
the conclusion it was just a wast of time. => My contributions
to OSM stops here.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/02/21 18:24, ghia wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:74becc41c8504cc734a46e17d706b9e3@ghia.eu">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div id="editbody1">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>I agree!</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="signature"> </div>
<p>There seems at first sight no raison to differentiate the
paths and to map some as footway, and others as path. I
think they should all be mapped as path.</p>
<p>If there are some with bicycles allowed, this can be tagged
by bicycle yes or no.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Gerard</p>
<div id="v1signature"> </div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p id="v1reply-intro">On 2021-02-19 15:06, Matthieu Gaillet
wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px
solid; margin: 0;">
<div id="v1replybody1">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div> </div>
First, I would certainly not break a good work - even if
I disagree - like you did here for example: <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.4822/4.9482"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.4822/4.9482</a>. That's
clearly a work done with precision and evidently the
tags are used consistently.
<div> </div>
<div>That said, I'm currently checking / correcting all
the uses of the footway tag outside urbanised areas in
the Haute-Meuse region (from Givet to Namur) and in
99,99% of cases, at least from the consistency point
of view, it was an error of the mapper, mostly
influenced by politics (mapper that wants to emphasis
the pedestrian character of a vicinal path) or simply
by mistake or ignorance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Actually I don't really care about the use of the
footway tag like you did IF and only IF it is
consistent all over OSM and that there is a consensus
about that use. As far as I can see your way of doing
things is an isolated case.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I really believe that there is a misunderstanding
in the definition of the <u>word</u> itself. Have a
look at that query of google <a
href="https://www.google.com/search?q=footway&client=safari&hl=fr&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl4pmUgfbuAhVMwKQKHXTgDnQQ_AUoAnoECAgQBA&biw=1280&bih=642"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">Images</a> on the word
footway. Even if those footways can be unpaved (clay
for example), all of the pictures refers to <u>urbanised
places</u>. The word footway refers to "trottoirs"
or "voetpad" much more than "sentier" or "pad".</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, with all due respect to your work, I
believe that you're wrong 😊 It might be considered as
mapping for the renderer since default OSM maps don't
really make the difference between a "normal" path and
a path tagged as narrow or difficult. But even if your
approach could make sense, the use of that footway tag
is wrong for me. Other renderers are perfectly using
the trail_difficulty and trail_visibility tags that
are made for such use.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the screen capure of <a
href="https://opentopomap.org/#map=16/50.31757/4.82489"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">opentopomap</a> below, the
green arrow shows a "normal" path, where the red one
shows a difficult path I mapped recently. It works !</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again and finally : for the immense majority of the
people, a "footway" is a <u>safe place to walk</u>.
Definitively not an alpine path.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Matthieu</div>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0;">
<div>On 18 Feb 2021, at 13:32, Francois Gerin <<a
href="mailto:francois.gerin@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">francois.gerin@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="v1v1Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div>
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>I faced the same question a while ago. I
also realized the lack of consensus, but
also the good reason for the lack of
consensus: the problem is not that simple,
and there are different points of view,
sometime very opposite, but also with a good
common base.</p>
<p>First, for years I didn't changed the map
when already mapped. And I mapped "like the
area around" to be consistent. But then I
became more active and started to refresh
and map not-yet-covered areas in my region.
Mainly woods and forest, where less mappers
work and because there was a clear need.<br>
=> Quickly I realized that it was really
important to map "appropriately" in such
areas. And, just for the confirmation, I
encountered several times people lost,
sometime with babies and bikes in quite
dangerous areas. (That happened many times
in the forest of Marche-les-Dames, that a
full refreshed recently.)</p>
<p>I ended with this "simple" approach, which
is also the best "consensus" (for myself)
from the different definitions, remarks,
wiki pages, and compatible with forest use:</p>
<p>- Everything is mostly a path, except if it
is a track or a footway.</p>
<p>- A track is where a 4-wheels vehicle, more
specifically a forestry tractor, can (if
traces on the ground) or is used to pass.
(Distinction made so that a path does not
become a track just because a quad can
pass!)</p>
<p>- A footway is definitely useful: this is a
path too small for horses and mountain
bikes. (By mountain bikers, I mean "standard
people", aka end users, not pro mountain
bikers who can pass nearly everywhere a
pedestrian passes!) That definitely
correspond to what bikers call "singles": a
very small track, where two bikes cannot
pass side by side.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>When I reached that approach, I read again
the different points of view, remarks, wiki,
to conclude that it was respecting quite
well most of the points considered
important. And, for me, it also satisfied
the need to make that distinction, which is
important on site. (cf. lost people,
dangerous situations)</p>
<p>Note that even if I'm a biker, I force
myself to consider OSM for the "end user".
With the distinction I make for a "standard
end user": Consider the map like a family
getting out for a walk on the Sunday...
Neither for a pro mountain biker, nor a
horse driver. Even if those categories
probably benefit the most from the
distinction.</p>
<p>My 2 cents.</p>
<p>++<br>
François</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="v1v1moz-cite-prefix">On 18/02/21
12:49, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="padding: 0 0.4em;
border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0;">
<p>Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
Sorry to send a second email just after my
first, but while doing some more research,
I found that this controversy is already
pretty old; see:</p>
<p><a class="v1v1moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333"
target="_blank" rel="noopener
noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p><a class="v1v1moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy"
target="_blank" rel="noopener
noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy</a><br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Pieter</p>
<div class="v1v1moz-cite-prefix">On 18.02.21
12:34, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="padding: 0 0.4em;
border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin:
0;">
<p>Hi Matthieu,</p>
<p>Welcome in the swampy fields of tagging
discussions ;)<br>
<br>
<strong>My view</strong></p>
<p>First of all, we do professional
routeplanning, for both cyclists and
pedestrians. And yes, I do (mostly)
agree with your view: a path is a small,
unpaved (desire) path, e.g. through a
forest whereas a footway is IMHO a
typical paved (or planned) road of at
least 0.5m wide. A rule of thumb that I
use is that a wheelchair/stroller could
pass easily, or as Gerard said earlier:
"it is like a sidewalk, but just not
next to a road"</p>
<p>If the "footway" is sufficiently wide
that a car <em>could</em> drive over it
(but is not allowed to), I'm inclined to
mark them as <em>highway=pedestrian</em>.
This is useful information, as e.g.
emergency services might take it during
an intervention to get close to the
location of the accident.</p>
<p>I'm also inclined to mark a wide,
planned way (e.g. in parks) as footways
too.<br>
<br>
I try to base my road classification
mostly on physical aspects: a path stays
a path, even if it suddenly has a name
board. This is because of my view from
routeplanning: in general, I assume that
that a footway is accessible to a
wheelchair user, whereas a path is not.
To explicitly add the vicinal road
status, there are some tags for that
(vicinal_road:ref IIRC?). This is the
only place where I disagree with you:</p>
<div>> The only exception I see is a
path in the country side that is
explicitly marked (road signs) as
pedestrian only, and/or has turnstiles
or other gates to keep other users away.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would still mark those as a
`highway=path`, with an additional
`bicycle=no` and map the
turnstiles/kissing gates explicitly. The
data consumer can then decide what to
do.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Note however that not everyone agrees
with my vision and that I'm not always
consistent too - I mapped a <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107877794"
target="_blank" rel="noopener
noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">very
peculiar case</a> yesterday that by my
objective criteria should be a 'path',
but that I mapped as footways due to
their context as that felt more
appropriate - but<a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/126568080"
target="_blank" rel="noopener
noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">
that place</a> has given me more
tagging questions too...<br>
<br>
At last, some people say that "a footway
needs a traffic sign to be a footway" or
"a cycle path needs a traffic sign to be
a cyclepath". That is a view I
vehemently reject - not every qualitive
footway has a traffic sign nor has every
traffic sign a qualitative footway -
although a traffic sign can help in
making these decisions.<br>
<br>
Also abusing `highway=path` for shared
infrastructure cycle/pedestrian
infrastructure is something I loathe: it
erases a lot of information and is an
effective downgrade of the relevant ways
from a routeplanning perspective, as we
have to assume the way is a desire path
(small, unpaved); not accessible to e.g.
wheelchairs, strollers and rollerskate,
instead of the very accessible nicely
paved, wide footway. To be able to
replicate all the information for this
downgrade, we would need `surface=*`,
`width=*`, `smoothness=*` and maybe even
`wheelchair=*` to be sure it is a highly
qualitative footway and quite a bit of
tricky and inexact preprocessing.
However, I do not have a perfect
solution for the shared
footways/cycleways as well - but marking
as path is definitively worse.<br>
So, Marc_marc: I'm sorry, but I do not
agree with you and some of the wiki
definitions! But that is fine - a
disagreement is often due to a different
perspective or some missing information.
And OSM won't fail over a bit of
disagreement ;)</div>
<p> <br>
<strong>Some history</strong></p>
<p>Apart from my vision, it is also
important to know that OpenStreetMap
started in the UK, where there are
plenty of vicinal roads. I think those
where historically mapped as
highway=footway too, but I'm not sure of
that. Furthermore, as Gerard nicely
stated earlier, it is a common
translation error.</p>
<p>Furhtermore, the iD editor used to
"upgrade" tags: a `highway=footway +
bicycle=yes` and `highway=cycleway +
foot=yes` got upgraded to `highway=path;
bicycle=yes; foot=yes`. As the iD
editor is widely used, there are quite
some footways downgraded now...</p>
<p>Kind regards,<br>
Pieter</p>
<div class="v1v1moz-cite-prefix">On
18.02.21 10:27, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="padding: 0 0.4em;
border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin:
0;">Hi,
<div> </div>
<div>I would like to know if there is
some kind of consensus in Belgium
regarding the use of <footway>
and <path> tags.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My intuitive interpretation in the
following : </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>a footway, generally speaking,
is anything that is specifically
created for pedestrians in
urbanised areas.</li>
<li>a path, is generally speaking
anything that is not a track (thus
not for 4 wheeled vehicles) and
not (as well) paved like a
footway.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>I know there are other much more
loose interpretations that say that a
footway might be a non-paved path, but
my question is : why would one tag
them differently than others ? After
all, a path is not suitable for
anything else than pedestrian use
(except sometimes bikes) ? On the
contrary, footways in urbanised places
*are* special and it makes sense to
map them differently.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I observe that some mappers are
using the footway tags for paths in
forests or fields in the middle of
nowhere. Those are often "sentiers
communaux" (public paths) mapped by
balnam affiliates. Its driving me
nuts 😊 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>- most of the time this difference
in the way those paths are mapped
doesn't reflect any physical nor
practical reality on the field. </div>
<div>- this creates vagueness and
looseness, I see "normal" paths
suddenly showed as "special" on maps
without any clear reason. </div>
<div>- some could argument that the path
tag is not detailed enough. That's not
true : it can be (and is) combined
with a lot of other tags to qualify it
from multiple point of views and
renderers are already taking care of
them. This is *not* the case of the
footway which is (logically) kind of
monolithic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only exception I see is a path
in the country side that is explicitly
marked (road signs) as pedestrian
only, and/or has turnstiles or other
gates to keep other users away.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do you generally agree with my way
of seeing things ? Is it at least the
general way of doing things in Belgium
? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Matthieu</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="v1v1mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="v1v1moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a class="v1v1moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="v1v1moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="v1v1moz-signature">--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="v1v1moz-signature">--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="v1v1mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="v1v1moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a class="v1v1moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="v1v1moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="v1pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0;
font-family: monospace;">_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>