[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Phil Wyatt]

It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater Hobart’ as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it in a ‘park’ of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets

 

From: Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 10:25 AM
To: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com>
Cc: Tony Forster <forster at ozonline.com.au>; talk OSM Australian List <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

 

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au>  <forster at ozonline.com.au <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au> > 
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM
To: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com <mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com> >
Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com <mailto:andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> >; 'talk OSM Australian List'
<Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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 <mailto:andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> >
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
> To: talk OSM Australian List <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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>    
> <mailto: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>    
> <mailto: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/20220128/9fd20e42/attachment-0001.htm>