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

[Francois Gerin]

Hi Matthieu,

I'm afraid you read too fast, you missed important details.

Read again the definition 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>, the very 
first and single sentence: the word "mainly" is definitely important, it 
is directly related to my first mail, the huge work I did on the last 
two years and I already had exchanges on this here on the mailing just a 
few months ago. Maybe you can retrieve some archive, just look for my 
email address or name, you should quickly spot the interesting things.

There are ways for which a path definition cannot be applied while a 
footway definition matches exactly. And no, there is no official sign.

The attributes you mentioned do not match the need, while the definitely 
tag does. And the definition clearly allows it. Also, tag and attributes 
are different entities with some hierarchy relationship.

Also, pay attention to the state of some wiki pages: draft are drafts, 
even if old. I would love to see elements leaving the draft state... 
(vicinal_*, among others) But they are drafts, they have been drafts for 
years and they're very probably going to keep as drafts for yet more 
time. While there are official non-draft documents that exist and should 
be respected.

Any work breaking would be particularly damaging. As you mentioned it 
yourself, that's a Pandora box. Be sure to understand the history and 
why things are like they are before breaking.

Regards,
François


On 18/02/21 18:38, Thibault Rommel wrote:
> I tend to try to use this page as an example 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads 
> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210219/35d05c2e/attachment.htm>