<div dir="ltr">Thanks Chris, thanks Richard.<div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">If we take the example of the Union Canal Towpath (e.g. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222362355">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222362355</a>), it was originally a footway, upgraded (i.e. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">resurfaced) </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">at several points in time (but a lot have been done in 2005-2006), so it became easier and easier for cyclists to use it. Then it became recently a NCN route. But as Chris mentioned, it's not wide at all so cyclists have to slow down when they meet with pedestrians. Thus it's really a mix between a footway and a cycleway now, so it seems difficult (at least for me) to think about it in term of footway or cycleway as it's both.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">If we tag this kind of way as a footway, the meaning would be, according to the OSM specifications (</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">(<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway</a>)</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">, a way which is "for</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for pedestrians". Is it the best option here as this way became a shared space.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">At the moment, the different tags (in link with this discussion) used for these ways are:</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">highway<span style="white-space:pre">=</span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">path, </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">surface<span style="white-space:pre">=</span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">paved, </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">bicycle<span style="white-space:pre">=</span>designated, </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">segregated<span style="white-space:pre">=</span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">no</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">, </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">width=</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">1.75</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">, </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">ncn_ref<span style="white-space:pre">=</span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">754 (</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Tobi added yesterday a ncn_ref in addition to the associated relation). These ways are also linked to this relation (</span><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/51479">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/51479</a>)<span style="font-size:12.8px"> with type=route and route=bicycle. All </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">these tags and association</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> seem to reflect what this way is in reality and it means that it stays quite neutral (or let's say objective) for both communities (walkers/hikers and cyclists).</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I read your diary entry about it Richard. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">I easily understand that it's easier for data consumers (especially software developers but also GIS users when they create a legend -- as many many cases have to be considered ) to deal with a tag which appears quite high in the OSM hierarchy, i.e. at the highway level.</span></div><div><br></div><div>So is there still somewhere and sometimes a place to use highway=path (in a similar context to the one described above) in a general context of "Please don't use highway=path"?</div><div><div style=""><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div>Eric</div><div><br></div></div></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 May 2016 at 06:44, Richard Fairhurst <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard@systemed.net" target="_blank">richard@systemed.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 10/05/2016 20:59, Eric Grosso wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What do you think? Do we, OSM contributors, tag all the highways part of<br>
a NCN as cycleways? What to do when in some cases, a highway is both<br>
part of a NCN route and a hiking route (e.g the John Muir Way)?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Please don't use highway=path:<br>
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333</a><br>
<br>
For a towpath I'd use (and I believe the general UK consensus is) highway=cycleway if it's been improved (widened, resurfaced) to shared-use standard; or highway=footway, bicycle=yes if it's still largely unimproved. And, as ever, add a surface tag.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Richard<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>