[Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?
baloo at ursamundi.org
Wed Jan 29 03:49:54 UTC 2020
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:08 PM Jarek Piórkowski <jarek at piorkowski.ca>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski <jarek at piorkowski.ca>
> >> 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>
> >> >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common
> >> >> 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.
> Hm, that's not how I think about it. In my mental map: bridleway
> doesn't exist (as a big-city mapper); path is something for people but
> nothing major; footway is usually paved with a lot of pedestrians on
> it and if not a sidewalk maybe bikes but not majority; cycleway is
> usually paved with relatively a lot of bicycles on it (can be unpaved
> if out in nature).
As previously mentioned, a lot of places (the US and possibly Canada in
particular) have a lot of places that use "multiuse path" and "bicycle
oriented facility" somewhat interchangeably, hence why I tend to make the
distinguishing factor between the two being on whether or not it has
lanes. So, part of the confusion is general official apathy of such
facilities, and it basically an afterthought chapter in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Standard Highway Signs and Markings.
Bridleways only come to mind from the only place I've ever seen them,
which, weirdly enough, would be in Los Angeles and its suburbs. North end
of the San Fernando Valley and going from roughly Pasadena to Indio (this
one also has adjacent foot and cycleways as part of the same right of way!)
has quite a few.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging