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

Mike Thompson miketho16 at gmail.com
Fri May 22 01:09:07 UTC 2020


On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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).
Isn't that tagging for the renderer?

> 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).
According to what others are saying here - if I am understanding correctly
- width should have nothing to do with it (other than if the width is too
narrow for certain functions).

> 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.
This seems to contradict what Mateusz  said. "Way used solely to access a
private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter
whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes
wide."

So you are saying that the highway=* tag depends not just on its function,
not just on its physical condition, but also on its physical condition
relative to the other ways in the vicinity?!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200521/aeda2be1/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list