[OSM-talk-be] Path vs Footpath (sorry for opening the pandora box)
Francois Gerin
francois.gerin at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 07:00:29 UTC 2021
Hi Steven,
I fully agree: paths (and tracks) are the most used ones, especially in
the area I cover.
But in some cases, much less frequent, there are ways that do not match
the path+designation scheme. These ways are not (yet) known/monitored by
the administration (cf. vicinal...). There is no sign. The width varies
most often under 1 meter, sometime even less than 20cm, and is not
reliable, like the surface. It also varies according to seasons.
These tracks are definitely *_made by/for pedestrians_*: some like thin
mountain traces, sometime with *stairs*, sometime passing between rocks
*with less room than the width of a mountain bike*, etc. These are not
official, there is no vicinal reference, there is nothing known about
them officially. (That's one of the reason I cover the region in a
systematic way and update with balnam. I already reported many new
paths. Blanm then triggers official administration to reference them.)
I read again the link you shared, which is the most important page and
the one I considered the most when cross-checking the different pages.
And, again, it is fully compatible.
Just read a little before
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads#Standard_tagging>
the tag you pointed to: that's written "black on white" and does not
says anything else than what I do...
/highway=path This is the default tag. However, there are other options too.
[...]
footway | Paths '*designed*' *for pedestrians* where *vehicles have no
access*./
(NOTE: on legal grounds, a bicycle is considered as a vehicle in many
cases, even if disturbing. Horses too. I was surprised to learn this.)
If you compile all the various wiki pages pointing to that topic, or
more exactly mentioning a few elements, and compare with the reality on
site, you will see that the path definition does not really match the
reality, while the definition of the footway fully matches, if you
consider the "mainly" word. This word exists and is part of the official
definition which is NOT a draft. This word is tghere and important. As
already mentioned, it closes the gap that was left empty.
That's a single sentence, but everything is in it. I checked again and
again, spent a lot of time on this, several times, and each time the
conclusion was the same.
=> If the definitions are to be changed, then it must be official. If
the draft takes precedence on the official definitions, even if weird,
it has to be clear. The slow road page and other drafts/non-drafts
should be cleaned up, removed or turned official after a reasonable time.
In the meantime, I can only reach the same conclusion if I respect the
texts... Again and again. (I spent more than 900 hours, just on the last
two years, working on this, covering about 650 ways. And the time spent
on site is clearly not the biggest part!)
PS: I would love to make use of the vicinal_ attributes... Since I cover
a quite wide area, with the end of monitoring/referencing paths on site
also for balnam, the vicinal_ stuff would be really great. But it is a
draft. And, in the meantime, there are pages that are official, like the
definitions. Even if in many cases, a situation can lead to either one
or another interpretation, there are some cases that are definitely
clear. If a way is designed for pedestrian (=not easily usable by
something else), then the highway=pedestrian can be used. And like I
wrote earlier, this is definitely useful, important and would miss if
the definition did not included the work "mainly".
PS2: Changing the definition to remove the "mainly" word is not a
solution. It will trigger much more complex issues.
Regards,
François
On 20/02/21 00:26, Steven Clays wrote:
> Hello François,
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads#Different_kinds_of_tracks.2Fpaths
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads#Different_kinds_of_tracks.2Fpaths>
>
> I almost always use highway=path, to avoid the british significance of
> footway. Actually footway is a 'designation', a legal status. In
> Belgium you could use designation=communal_road, eg.
>
> Greets,
> Steven
>
> Op vr 19 feb. 2021 om 07:00 schreef Francois Gerin
> <francois.gerin at gmail.com <mailto:francois.gerin at gmail.com>>:
>
> 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 <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 <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/20210220/a7cf68e8/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list