[Tagging] path vs footway

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM, johnw <johnw at mac.com> wrote:

> AFIK - footway and path are more toward the width, surface, smoothness,
> maintenance level, and expected use of the way. a sidewalk often gets
> tagged as footpath, as would be a concrete walkway in a garden.
>
> Paths are usually less maintained, less even, narrower, and lower grade
> surfaces.
>
> footpath doesn’t imply horses=no, it implies cars=no.
>

vehicle=no, actually.  Bicycles are typically banned on sidewalks unless
otherwise posted in most areas that are party to the Bern Conventions on
traffic.

to me path implies wheelchair=no.
>

I don't know about that, path's generally the multimodal middle between
footway (like a city sidewalk) and cycleway (which often implies foot=no;
less commonly foot=yes, rarely foot=designated; I explicitly tag if it's
unclear on footway, path, cycleway and motorway beyond the absolutely most
broad assumptions; though it's safe to say anything that's a sidewalk
mapped as a footway in downtown areas of pretty much anywhere in America is
probably suspect if it says bicycle=yes without a source).


> if they are wide, well maintained, somewhat smooth and hard, and easily
> passible, then they are footpaths.
>
> if it is a track for emergency access vehicles that is usually open for
> hiking, horses, and bikes, then label it is a track instead, cars=emergency
> or whatever that exact tag is
>

cars=* isn't a tag.  motor_vehicle would be...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141129/a6027153/attachment.html>