[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - "is_sidepath" as a sidepath concept

[Jens Glad Balchen]

On 03.12.2022 11:49, Alex wrote:
>
>> _Mainly_, I have concerns about the concept of a cycle path or foot 
>> path being attendant to or a sidepath of another road.
>>
>> In Norway, we no longer have cycle paths and foot paths. We have 
>> cycleways, footways and carriageways. It may seem like a small 
>> difference in terminology, but it makes a large difference as part of 
>> an overall mindset. Roads are roads, and different types of roads are 
>> simply meant for different types of travel. 
>
> I get your point, but that's not how urban planning and development 
> usually thinks and works (unfortunately). In the reality of the vast 
> majority of places in the world, a "street" is considered to consist 
> of a central carriageway (mostly with motorised traffic) and side 
> paths for walking or cycling that are related to each other. Both 
> physically and, let's say, athmospherically.
>

I know the thinking exists. But it's not formalised or even explicitly 
acknowledged anywhere that I know of, so I would hesitate to formalise 
and codify the thinking in OSM when no one else (that I know of) is 
doing that. Hence, I'd like your thoughts on the principle, and would 
like to better understand which practical issues you are trying to solve.

Cheers,

Jens