<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Karl Newman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:siliconfiend@gmail.com">siliconfiend@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:15 AM, David Carmean <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dlc@halibut.com" target="_blank">dlc@halibut.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 05:27:44PM -0800, Scott Atwood wrote:<br>
<br>
...<br>
<br>
> Multi-Use Paths (a.k.a. Class I). This one is also pretty easy. I tag<br>
> these as {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}. However, one wrinkle<br>
> is that these MUPs sometimes have have sections with an on-street alignment.<br>
> In that case, I added a relation to the entire MUP, both the off-street<br>
> trail portions, and the on-street alignments, that was tagged like<br>
> {route=bicycle, type=route, name=_name_of_the_MUP_}. I intentionally left<br>
> off the network tag from the relation, since this isn't part of a formal<br>
> route network per se, but if anything, it would be {network=lcn}<br>
<br>
How did you decide upon this scheme? I've been working on sections of the<br>
SF Bay Trail, some of which even allow horses. I've been tagging these<br>
primarily as {highway=path|track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes|no,<br>
surface=paved|gravel|dirt}. The choice of "path" or "track" has been a little<br>
imprecise.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>Your scheme seems better. A multi-use path is exactly what highway=path was intended for. It's not primarily for any mode of transportation, but pedestrians, bicycles and sometimes horses are all allowed. As for path vs. track, I think of track as something like a fire road or similar, something that is occasionally used by wheeled vehicles, usually with special permission.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>When I decided on using {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}, was simply following existing usage in my local area which seemed to make sense to me. When I started mapping, the Guadalupe River Trail was already mapped and tagged like this, so I just continued using the same tagging scheme on other local MUPs as well.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Even the highway=path example page says that {highway=cycleway, foot=designated} can be used interchangeably with {highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated}.</div><div><br></div><div>The only places I have personally used {highway=path} is when it was just sort of an informal dirt path that isn't clearly designated for any particular kind of user:</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.3778&lon=-121.93067&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.3778&lon=-121.93067&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>And here is an example of a location where I distinguished beteween {highway=cycleway}, {highway=footway}, and {highway=path}:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.294868&lon=-121.791088&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.294868&lon=-121.791088&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I think the path vs. track distinction is a Britishism, because I read a page that was intended to distinguish them, and it didn't make much sense to me:</div><div><br></div><div>
<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>-Scott</div><div><br></div></div><br clear="all"><br>
-- <br>Scott Atwood<br><br>Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia. ~H.G. Wells<br><br><br>