[OSM-talk-be] Path vs Footpath (sorry for opening the pandora box)

[Thibault Rommel]

I tend to try to use this page as an example
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads

Met vriendelijke groeten
Thibault Rommel


Op do 18 feb. 2021 om 14:01 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <matthieu at gaillet.be>:

> Thanks for sharing your ideas Vincent.
>
> I mostly agree with you except on that point :
>
> - A footway is definitely useful: this is a path too small for horses and
> mountain bikes. (By mountain bikers, I mean "standard people", aka end
> users, not pro mountain bikers who can pass nearly everywhere a pedestrian
> passes!) That definitely correspond to what bikers call "singles": a very
> small track, where two bikes cannot pass side by side.
>
> Even if the wiki is not definitive about the use of that tag (mostly
> because of national specifics), most if not all the pictures refers to ways
> in *urbanized places* where the attention has been put on pedestrian
> mobility. Most are guarded by “pedestrian only” road signs.
>
> What you’re trying to show on the map can be reached with tags like
> trail_visibility, surface, smoothness, mtb_scale, bicycle, and even width.
> I believe that mapping a footway for a super small path is leading to
> exactly the contrary of what you’re trying to avoid : people will try to
> follow those paths because they’re emphasised by most renderers.
>
>  I also realized the lack of consensus, but also the good reason for the
> lack of consensus: the problem is not that simple, and there are different
> points of view, sometime very opposite, but also with a good common base.
>
>
> There *is* actually a consensus if I refer to the reactions to my
> questioning this morni
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20210218/b87f0db0/attachment.htm>