[Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:15, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The way I see it is there are two main views of highway=footway,path in
> OSM.
>
> 1. Is that footway is urban and path is remote/forest
> 2. Is that footway is for primary walking paths (including remote/forest
> paths) and that path is for non-specified usage or mixed use paths
> (including urban paths).
>
> This does not describe the situation

   - *highway=footway* is "urban", implies foot=designated, usage can be
   expanded with tags like bicycle=yes|permisive||designated to describe
   mid-use ways

   - *highway=cycleway *implies bicycle=designated, usage can be widened
   with tags like foot=yes|permissive|designated to describe mixed-use ways
   (this

   - *path* is being used for two completly different  things:

(a) a "hiking" path, mostly in non-urban situations, including mountain
hiking
(b) with the additional tagging foot=designated plus bicycle=designated
plus segregated=yes|no as a mixed use foot-cycle-way

All of these are widely used and I think it will be impossible to undo the
tagging.
What has been proposed is to add a new way of tagging of what with the
present tagging could be:described with
highway=path plus sac_scale=hiking
with a new combination of
highway=path plus path=hiking
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200527/f64e38d0/attachment.htm>