[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> wrote:

> Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do
> not use highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=footway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway> and the
> preference is highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=
> path <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath>, but the
> walking track page mentions that tag regularly – what is the
> differentiation?
>

That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my view
which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for use mostly by
people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with no clear intended
mode, but not wide enough for cars.

So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway with this
view.

An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and remote
bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that view is
outdated now.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32, <forster at ozonline.com.au> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I assumed that
> highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not
> allow bicycles
>
> highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not
> allow pedestrians
>
> and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes
>

For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still
remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but which is
the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use for.

At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data consumers
really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220127/3e916e82/attachment.htm>