[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Adam Horan]

>
> *Seems like most folks change to path if it in a ‘park’ of some sort and
> use ‘footway’ in the streets*


I'm very much in this camp, not so much actively changing them if someone
retags, but generally preferring 'path' for things out in the countryside
and footway for urban settings.

Plus path seems so flexible and has fewer confusing connotations. path +
foot + bike is fine and clear, but footway + bike, or cycleway + foot is
confusing.

Adam


On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 10:34, Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> wrote:

> 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> 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?
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220128/ede86746/attachment.htm>