[talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au]

I rarely map things that aren’t urban footpaths. 

 

So generally footway or cycleway. As I’m generally mapping in Queensland, where there isn’t much if any legal distinction between general footpath and a signed “shared path”, I’m using footway or cycleway depending on how cycle friendly (wide enough, no low hanging branches, smooth enough surface, …) I find the way, simply to get them to render differently in Carto, though the legal access restrictions for routing purposes are identical.

 

In the rare cases where I did map paths “in the woods”, I’ve usually used path (or track, depending…).

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 20:13
To: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

So how do YOU decide which to use when the track is for ‘exclusively for foot traffic’ or do you just mix it up on a whim, change each week, go with whatever is similar around the object you are mapping?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au>  <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> > 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 8:58 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' <talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

In the end, the only thing that counts is what is tagged on the objects in the database, and the OSM database API does not impose any restrictions about that.

 

I believe even iD allows you in the end to just freely specify any tags you like on any object?

 

I’m sure it’s possible to work out some tagging scheme that adequately describes the situation you linked to.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com <mailto:graemefitz1 at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:29
To: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> 
Cc: OSM-Au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 16:54, <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different implied default access restrictions.

 

We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed here are:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia

 

Yep!

 

How do we handle this: https://goo.gl/maps/x39C4ky1w6S7XoLUA when motorway says bicycle=no?

 

& similarly, you can't (at least in iD) add bike lanes to trunk roads.


 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220202/8f5a1b25/attachment.htm>