[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Andrew Harvey]

Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path,
10% footway.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> wrote:

> Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
> vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')
>
> Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe
> try
> it o your local parks
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: forster at ozonline.com.au <forster at ozonline.com.au>
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM
> To: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com>
> Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>; 'talk OSM Australian List'
> <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>
> Hi
>
> Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit
> prohibition of bicycles.
>
> But I could be wrong
>
> Tony
>
> > Thanks folks,
> >
> >
> >
> > OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the
> > ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing
> > strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz
> > Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where  there
> > is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as something  like
> > the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split from path  to
> > footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.
> >
> >
> >
> > I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so
> > it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.
> >
> >
> >
> > I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers - Phil
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
> > To: talk OSM Australian List <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com
> > <mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com> > wrote:
> >
> > Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use
> >  do not use  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>
> > highway= <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>
> >  footway and the preference is
> > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=
> > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> path, 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
> > <mailto: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/20220128/909667d7/attachment.htm>