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

[Daniel Westergren]

> you are touching on an essential misunderstanding in this conversation, a
> misunderstanding that we encounter in many different discussions in OSM.
>
> Those " words that people normally would associate ...", i.e. "path",
> "footway", "track", ... are *code* words, they do not have any intrinsic
> meaning. Their meaning is defined by their use.
>

That's how it would be in an ideal world. But why do we then translate all
these "code words" into other languages? A "path" in Swedis is translated
to "stig" and of course I will use that for a wilderness trail and think
all is fine and dandy, when it's not.

There is a dissonance between what some may understand as the underlying
intention of a key and what is communicated to less-experienced users.
That's why everyone has their own interpretation of what a path must be.



> The "path" problem is not a problem. A way in OSM tagged with highway=path
> (without any other tag) means a narrow, unpaved track,  on which you are
> allowed to walk, cycle, and (in most jurisdictions) ride on a horse or on a
> donkey.
>

I'd have to disagree strongly with this, based on what I've learnt during
this long thread. A path without additional tags can really be anything,
really anything. It can be a narrow, unpaved track or it can be a wide
combined foot- and cycleway that the user doesn't know how to tag (or
doesn't know enough about), or anything in between. There can't be two
completely different uses of path, since they both depend on subtags that
may or may not exist.

This is the very reason why we're discussing this and that's what I have
tried to explain better in the draft text I shared. path|footway|cycleway
cannot be both about the function of the way and the physical
characteristics at the same time. Additional tags must be used to tell that
"yes. this is actually a narrow, unpaved track" or "no, this is not a
narrow, unpaved track, but a sidewalk or a wide, urban footway where
bicycles may also be welcome" or else we're back in the mess again.

Thanks to Kevin, Andrew and others for these enlightenments.

/Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200531/2ff1e96f/attachment-0001.htm>