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

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 21:49:13 UTC 2020


On 1/28/2020 4:23 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> >    Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that if the same way is
> > designated for both pedestrians and cyclists, it cannot be tagged with
> > highway=footway - as it is for cyclists as well, it cannot be tagged
> > with highway=cycleway because it is for pedestrians as well, so such
> > shared ways for this long period were tagged as
> > highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated. This has also been
> > the preset in the main OSM editor - JOSM. This is in documentation and
> > maps for ten or more years.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
> When I draw a highway=cycleway using the JOSM preset, it offers the
> option to tag it with foot=yes/no/dedicated. Likewise, when I draw a
> highway=footway, it offers bicycle=yes/no/dedicated. I can't say how
> long it's been there because I don't generally use the presets. J

Be that as it may, there are a great many  `highway=path` objects
where the intent was `combined foot- and cycleway`. The concept that a
`footway` is urban while a `path` represents something more like a
wilderness trail is a rather new one to me. (I'm not saying that it's
new to the community. I may have been misinformed. Many other mappers
were similarly misinformed. Moreover, I've tagged some `footway`
objects that _are_ wilderness trails, as well as urban `path` objects,
and that, too, seems to match local practice.)

Given the large number of objects that are mistagged under the
understanding being proffered, it strikes me that the ship has sailed.
Since `surface=*` and `width=*` are available, they are likely to be
the only reliable way to disambiguate a paved footway from a dirt
hiking trail, or a paved doubletrack from a MTB trail.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin



More information about the Tagging mailing list