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

Jmapb jmapb at gmx.com
Tue Jan 28 23:25:48 UTC 2020


On 1/28/2020 4:49 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> 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.

My impression from this thread is that none of the three
(highway=footway, highway=cycleway, and highway=path) are deemed
inherently invalid for mapping a mixed bicycle/foot way. Some mappers
may have a heuristic for which to choose or avoid, but there doesn't
seem to be an official rule that holds worldwide. I'm sure a lot of it
is down to local mapping styles. And apparently the urban/rural thing is
a red herring, at least for mixed-use ways.

J




More information about the Tagging mailing list