[Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 15:06:12 UTC 2015
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 03:06:00PM -0700, 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?
theoretically - no.
practicallly - yes. Why ? Because we have 4 or 5 old definitions where not
two mappers would agree what they mean.
> 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
It would but this would require changing the defintion of the tag. The tag
is approved and in use since years and can not be changed like that.
Btw access is not everything. If you want a bicycle router you need further
tags to decide if a highway=path is not only allowed but actually suitable
for regular bicycles.
More information about the Tagging