[Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Jan 27 16:30:22 UTC 2020

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:

> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
> > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
> > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
> >
> >   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
> > traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
> > bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
> > segregated=no) as applicable.
> >    * For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
> > If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
> > permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
> > segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
> description.)
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?
> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?

No, this is also my take.  In North America, I'm generally inclined to go
with highway=cycleway if it has formally marked lanes and highway=path if
it doesn't, and explicitly tag access on both.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200127/e355eafb/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list