[Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Aug 3 00:10:25 UTC 2015

On 3/08/2015 8:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
>> Richard Z. wrote
>>> ...
>>> I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
>>> variant
>>> of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
>>> unless
>>> otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
>>> ...
>> @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5
>> or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
>> Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
>> along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
>> properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
>> keys.
>> The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and
>> assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.
> Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
> of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could
> go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the
> same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).

And that leads to the mess 'we' have.
Taking this to an extreme there would be some 6(access)*6(surface)*6(set widths) of highway=path/footway (216 types)
each with an individual tag
just so some mappers would not be put to the trouble of entering the data!

Oh .. and I have left off the cycleway/bridle way too so add another 3!

Personally I am for the amalgamation of highway=path/footway.
Not using the sub tag for detail ... is like using shop=yes ... you simply mark the presence of something and leave the detail for someone who cares.
Most who don't use the sub tags are probably not correctly suing path/footway either.

More information about the Tagging mailing list