[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Liz<edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
> SUMMARY
>
> Trying to keep my comment general at first to find what are the needs:
> what should be in the highway tag and what are "local factors". This
> turned into a stream of thoughts but hopefully coherent enough to
> breed some more refined thoughts.

Nice work Liz, thought I might comment on just a few things you raised.

> Things that all agree on:
>
> highway=footway:
> Something, where walking is allowed and possible for someone.
> (walking might be and is allowed and possible elsewhere, too)
>
> highway=cycleway:
> something, where cycling is allowed and possible
> (even a German dedicated/signposted cycleway fits that description,
> i.e. it's not a oneway dependency - not all things tagged
> highway=cycleway are german signposted cycleways). Pedestrian access
> undefined - might be country dependent but not supported (yet), so
> there has about always been a suggestion in the wiki to always tag it
> with foot=no/yes/designated.
>
> highway=path:
> something not wide enough for four wheeled vehicles OR where
> motorvehicles are forbidden (unless otherwise indicated by
> snowmobile/agricultural=designated or similar).
>
> Anything with
> wheelchair=no: unsuitable for wheelchair users or other mobility
> impaired

> highway=track
> implies that it's wide enough for a small motorcar to drive on,
> even if it's illegal.

I would love to see the wiki updated with these definitions. IMHO the
wiki is precisely the place to document the "things that all agree
on".

> Things that people don't agree on:
>
> 1) Is a highway=cycleway + foot=yes any different from a
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes

This problem arises because "cycleway" and "footway" have vague
implications. These implications either need to be agreed upon and
precisely documented, or the tags should be used with additional tags
to clarify the implications, or they should be deprecated.

> 4) is a constructed way with the traffic sign "no motorvehicles" any
> different from a constructed way with the traffic sign "combined foot
> and cycleway" (or with a cycleway-signpost in the UK)

designated=* and no=* should be sufficient, right?

> Conclusion:
>
> Some users care most about whether it's a built way or not, others want
> to know what the sign was (are there likely users of other transport
> methods) and some care only "Am I allowed or not?"

What do you mean by "built way"? surface=*? The sign and/or legality
should be covered by designated=* and no=*, right?