[Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

Jarek Piórkowski jarek at piorkowski.ca
Wed Jun 10 23:49:22 UTC 2020

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 13:40, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchfamily.org> wrote:
> My hope would be that addition of more highway=* values that better match what people are trying to map would be a short term pain (data consumers need to add one more check) but long term benefit.
> For example, as mappers discover they can map a voie verte in France or a “Rails to Trails” in the USA as highway=greenway and not as arbitrary choice of track, path, cycleway or bridle path differentiated by a bunch of foot=designated, bicycle=designated, etc. tags they are likely to migrate to the simpler tagging. At some time in the future data consumers could begin to be more restrictive on their logic.

I'd support more highway=* values, but a "greenway" doesn't seem like
the best start to me.

A "rail trail" as I'm familiar with it in Ontario seems an actually
fairly good use of highway=path - a multi-purpose, multi-user way that
usually doesn't allow two-tracked vehicles that need road
registration. (ATVs might be okay but their legal status is often
unclear and enforcement is uneven.)
is probably a typical look, it seems to be

Or am I misunderstanding? What in your mind would be the difference
between highway=greenway and highway=path?

I can accept that a "greenway" would be different from a "dangerous
path a non-advanced hiker can die on", but I would suggest to start by
splitting out the latter. (As done for example with via ferrata.)

And regarding other path types: what highway= tag would you suggest
for https://osm.org/way/236153221 (photo in linked Wikipedia article)?
To me, a "hiking trail" would be the closest description, but I'm not
experienced with scene lingo nor do I know what it would be in British


More information about the Tagging mailing list