[talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route hierarchy

[Warin]

On 21/11/21 2:41 pm, stevea wrote:
> I repeat something I have said a number of times, say for example, about bicycle infrastructure / routes.  Although it can be said about "pedestrian infrastructure / routes" pretty much one-for-one (as bicycle infrastructure / routes).  It is this:
>
> There is "infrastructure" tagging, like highway=footway, highway=pedestrian, highway=track, highway=cycleway... and these are not in any particular "hierarchy," they simple "are" what they "are" (on the ground, validated and verified by eyeballs).
>
> There is "route" tagging, which is putting elements of (roadway, cycleway, sidewalk, track, pedestrian walkway...) into a route relation.  If walking route, and part of the "local" network of routes, it's network=lwn.


Note that walking/hiking routes must be signed - that is signage on the 
ground that identifies the route.