[talk-au] Question re footway or path for asphalt paths in National Parks

Ian Sergeant inas66+osm at gmail.com
Wed Oct 20 00:14:48 BST 2010


On 18 October 2010 20:52, Mark Pulley <mrpulley at lizzy.com.au> wrote:

> On the wiki, it suggests using highway=footway for urban footpaths and
> highway=path for hiking trails.
>
> Which is best to use for asphalt footways in national parks (e.g.
> wheelchair-friendly paths to lookouts) - should I use footway or path?
>

My recollection of this is that highway=footway, highway=cycleway, and
highway=bridleway have existed for far longer than the highway=path.

I think some sections of the community were having difficulty knowing what
was the difference between, say:
highway=footway
bicycle=designated
horse=permissive

and

highway=cycleway
foot=yes
horse=permissive

and

highway=bridleway
foot=yes
bicycle=designated

So, the idea was to just have highway=path, and then specify the use
explicitly, so for a path designated as a cycleway, usable by pedestrians
and horse use permitted, you might have..

highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=yes
horse=permissive

My understanding is that there is no effective difference between

highway=footway
surface=paved

and

highway=path
foot=yes
surface=paved

despite what the wiki says.

Away from tagging for a second, personally, I'd be quite reticent to mark an
asphalt national park track as wheelchair accessible, as not many of them
maintained to a point of being independently accessible.  Where is the path
you are considering tagging?

Ian.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20101020/67df7e80/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list