[talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:03, <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:

> The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths
> are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here
> were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the
> same coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in. 😊
>
>
>
> Personally, I use both of these for shared paths depending if I consider
> them more or less suitable for cycling (primarily based on width).
>
> highway=cycleway
> foot=designated
> segregated=no
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> highway=footway
> bicycle=designated
> segregated=no
>
>
>
> both adequately describe a shared path IMO, but I would expect a
> “cycleway” to be wider and generally more suitable for cycling than a
> footway. They do render differently, and I would expect a bicycle router to
> give shared path cycleways some preference over shared path footways.
>

Same here. My rule of thumb is when it's a footpath (ie. footway=sidewalk,
it's running along the edge of a street) shared path I'd use
highway=footway, and when it's not a footpath (not footway=sidewalk) then
highway=cycleway. But I wouldn't say that's applied widely in OSM data.

But because highway=cycleway and highway=footway are a bit interchangeable
for shared paths I'll also add both foot=designated and bicycle=designated
so that if the highway tag is changed at least both access are clear.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211013/d596ece5/attachment.htm>