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

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Jan 27 20:31:20 UTC 2020


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> wrote:
> > >  Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and
> access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly
> purpose built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode
> restrictions.
> >
> > True enough.  Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where
> > foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment
> > that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational
> > trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is
> > the 'primary' use.  And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch
> > of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have
> > subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are
> > grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling
> > them with `highway=track`.)
> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
> cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
> over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
> purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
> I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
> trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
> single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
> "cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
> renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
>

Possibly old version of the way had lanes and signage, which got deleted in
a more recent rebuild?  Or just bad tagging?  Either way, looking at it in
id's default imagery I'd say that definitely looks like a path to me now,
barring any on the ground knowledge.  Though the width and turn radii on
curves tends to make me think they wanted it to be a cycleway but then
either chickened out or downgraded it at the last minute.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200127/83fb066a/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list