[Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 21. May 2020, at 23:17, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:
> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical classification).
> 
> If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are data users/consumers supposed to figure this out?


I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). 


The distinction by width (wide enough for a car or only for a bike) seems a very fundamental one, it has also functional implications. On the other hand, footways and cycleways may be wide enough for a car, their tagging is mostly determined by the legal situation, (e.g. signed, in parks), and the same for their path synonyms (with *=designated), so it’s only between “non designated” path and track that width is decisive (functionally: usable by tractors or not).

If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a driveway, and when you would consider it track, that’s why there isn’t a clear limit on a global level.

Cheers Martin