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

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Wed Jan 29 00:55:17 UTC 2020


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek PiĆ³rkowski <jarek at piorkowski.ca>
wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets <shkvorets at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common
> practice.
> >> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber
> foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers
> bikes, `highway=path` for the rest.
> >> If you need to explicitly disallow bikes or foot you use access tags.
> >
> > This seems a little iffy.  I mean, footway is obvious, is it designed
> for people on foot, and too narrow for oncoming bikes to meet?  Footway.
> City sidewalk?  Footway.  A path through a park?  Probably a path
> (especially if it's multiuse), unless it's really narrow, then footway.
> Has lanes but isn't a street?  Cycleway.
>
> Around Toronto I've generally seen (and also tagged myself), for
> routes through a park, footway if it's paved or otherwise major, path
> if it's unpaved or overgrown or status uncertain. So I interpret
> highway=footway to be "higher grade" than highway=path - the opposite
> of your interpretation, I fear...
>

Not higher grade, just not as specialized in its design purpose and what
other use modes will not find their needs particularly addressed if it's
allowed at all.  In a venn diagram of bridleway, cycleway and footway, path
is in the middle.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200128/9923e07b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list