[OSM-talk-be] Path vs Footpath (sorry for opening the pandora box)
Francois Gerin
francois.gerin at gmail.com
Mon Feb 22 08:21:15 UTC 2021
I'm sorry, it's really nice that each one interprets things like he
wants, but official rules are there to avoid issues, especially in
subtle cases (like current case, as already mentioned) and to avoid
individual _*interpretations*_.
In the meantime, I saw a lot of inconsistencies in the previous
exchanges, while you definitely did not take into account the elements I
shared, which are based and, AGAIN, have been confronted to the official
rules.
Read again the main definitions
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Paths>, they are CLEAR.
Especially the usage of a path and recommandations.
You don't like the use of footways, that's really sad, but I RESPECT THE
RULES. A path is NOT to use in the cases I mentioned, like confirmed by
the usage rules that are OFFICIAL, link here above.
Contradictions (non-exhaustive list):
- You claim it's cheating on rules for rendering purpose. But you
recognize the rendering is not different between a path and a footway.
- You rely on a never-ending draft, while official rules have
precedence and are CLEAR. The draft itself, which has not come to an
official rule change for years and introduce some confusions (this one,
among others), which you make use of to torn things in the way you would
like things to be. But rules are rules and are there for good reasons.
When you tell "must be understood as", "interpret like" or the likes,
you are directly demonstrating the lack of understanding of why rules exist.
- You claim a path must be used, while the official definition of a
path, and the recommended usage CLEARLY tells it's a footway.
- You make distinction between roads (secondary vs residential,
motorway vs secondary) and track vs path, but you cannot make a
distinction between a path and a footway, which is clearly a
bigger/clearer gap, much clearer than track vs path, which are often
difficult to distinct for on site.
- You "don't see why", so it does not exist. Go to sites on see! Rules
are there for good reasons. NOTE: When someone insist on the fact
something is subtle and complex, rejecting without even considering the
case/reason is error prone.
Particularly sad to see how OSM is turning against itself, like often
with community projects. After having spent wasted hundreds of hours to
clean the mess it was in many parts, in RESPECT OF THE RULES even when I
didn't like them, I come to the conclusion it was just a wast of time.
=> My contributions to OSM stops here.
On 20/02/21 18:24, ghia wrote:
>
> I agree!
>
>
> There seems at first sight no raison to differentiate the paths and to
> map some as footway, and others as path. I think they should all be
> mapped as path.
>
> If there are some with bicycles allowed, this can be tagged by bicycle
> yes or no.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerard
>
>
> On 2021-02-19 15:06, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
>
> First, I would certainly not break a good work - even if I
> disagree - like you did here for example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.4822/4.9482
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.4822/4.9482>. That's
> clearly a work done with precision and evidently the tags are used
> consistently.
> That said, I'm currently checking / correcting all the uses of
> the footway tag outside urbanised areas in the Haute-Meuse region
> (from Givet to Namur) and in 99,99% of cases, at least from the
> consistency point of view, it was an error of the mapper, mostly
> influenced by politics (mapper that wants to emphasis the
> pedestrian character of a vicinal path) or simply by mistake or
> ignorance.
> Actually I don't really care about the use of the footway tag like
> you did IF and only IF it is consistent all over OSM and that
> there is a consensus about that use. As far as I can see your way
> of doing things is an isolated case.
> I really believe that there is a misunderstanding in the
> definition of the _word_ itself. Have a look at that query of
> google Images
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=footway&client=safari&hl=fr&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl4pmUgfbuAhVMwKQKHXTgDnQQ_AUoAnoECAgQBA&biw=1280&bih=642> on
> the word footway. Even if those footways can be unpaved (clay for
> example), all of the pictures refers to _urbanised places_. The
> word footway refers to "trottoirs" or "voetpad" much more than
> "sentier" or "pad".
> Therefore, with all due respect to your work, I believe that
> you're wrong 😊 It might be considered as mapping for the renderer
> since default OSM maps don't really make the difference between a
> "normal" path and a path tagged as narrow or difficult. But even
> if your approach could make sense, the use of that footway tag is
> wrong for me. Other renderers are perfectly using the
> trail_difficulty and trail_visibility tags that are made for such use.
> On the screen capure of opentopomap
> <https://opentopomap.org/#map=16/50.31757/4.82489> below, the
> green arrow shows a "normal" path, where the red one shows a
> difficult path I mapped recently. It works !
> Again and finally : for the immense majority of the people, a
> "footway" is a _safe place to walk_. Definitively not an alpine path.
> Matthieu
>
> On 18 Feb 2021, at 13:32, Francois Gerin
> <francois.gerin at gmail.com <mailto:francois.gerin at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I faced the same question a while ago. 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.
>
> First, for years I didn't changed the map when already mapped.
> And I mapped "like the area around" to be consistent. But then
> I became more active and started to refresh and map
> not-yet-covered areas in my region. Mainly woods and forest,
> where less mappers work and because there was a clear need.
> => Quickly I realized that it was really important to map
> "appropriately" in such areas. And, just for the confirmation,
> I encountered several times people lost, sometime with babies
> and bikes in quite dangerous areas. (That happened many times
> in the forest of Marche-les-Dames, that a full refreshed
> recently.)
>
> I ended with this "simple" approach, which is also the best
> "consensus" (for myself) from the different definitions,
> remarks, wiki pages, and compatible with forest use:
>
> - Everything is mostly a path, except if it is a track or a
> footway.
>
> - A track is where a 4-wheels vehicle, more specifically a
> forestry tractor, can (if traces on the ground) or is used to
> pass. (Distinction made so that a path does not become a track
> just because a quad can pass!)
>
> - 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.
>
>
> When I reached that approach, I read again the different
> points of view, remarks, wiki, to conclude that it was
> respecting quite well most of the points considered important.
> And, for me, it also satisfied the need to make that
> distinction, which is important on site. (cf. lost people,
> dangerous situations)
>
> Note that even if I'm a biker, I force myself to consider OSM
> for the "end user". With the distinction I make for a
> "standard end user": Consider the map like a family getting
> out for a walk on the Sunday... Neither for a pro mountain
> biker, nor a horse driver. Even if those categories probably
> benefit the most from the distinction.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> ++
> François
>
>
>
> On 18/02/21 12:49, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Sorry to send a second email just after my first, but
> while doing some more research, I found that this
> controversy is already pretty old; see:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333>
>
> and
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy>
>
> Kind regards,
> Pieter
>
> On 18.02.21 12:34, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote:
>
> Hi Matthieu,
>
> Welcome in the swampy fields of tagging discussions ;)
>
> *My view*
>
> First of all, we do professional routeplanning, for
> both cyclists and pedestrians. And yes, I do (mostly)
> agree with your view: a path is a small, unpaved
> (desire) path, e.g. through a forest whereas a footway
> is IMHO a typical paved (or planned) road of at least
> 0.5m wide. A rule of thumb that I use is that a
> wheelchair/stroller could pass easily, or as Gerard
> said earlier: "it is like a sidewalk, but just not
> next to a road"
>
> If the "footway" is sufficiently wide that a car
> /could/ drive over it (but is not allowed to), I'm
> inclined to mark them as /highway=pedestrian/. This is
> useful information, as e.g. emergency services might
> take it during an intervention to get close to the
> location of the accident.
>
> I'm also inclined to mark a wide, planned way (e.g. in
> parks) as footways too.
>
> I try to base my road classification mostly on
> physical aspects: a path stays a path, even if it
> suddenly has a name board. This is because of my view
> from routeplanning: in general, I assume that that a
> footway is accessible to a wheelchair user, whereas a
> path is not. To explicitly add the vicinal road
> status, there are some tags for that (vicinal_road:ref
> IIRC?). This is the only place where I disagree with you:
>
> > The only exception I see is a path in the country
> side that is explicitly marked (road signs) as
> pedestrian only, and/or has turnstiles or other gates
> to keep other users away.
> I would still mark those as a `highway=path`, with an
> additional `bicycle=no` and map the turnstiles/kissing
> gates explicitly. The data consumer can then decide
> what to do.
> Note however that not everyone agrees with my vision
> and that I'm not always consistent too - I mapped a
> very peculiar case
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107877794>
> yesterday that by my objective criteria should be a
> 'path', but that I mapped as footways due to their
> context as that felt more appropriate - butthat place
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/126568080> has
> given me more tagging questions too...
>
> At last, some people say that "a footway needs a
> traffic sign to be a footway" or "a cycle path needs a
> traffic sign to be a cyclepath". That is a view I
> vehemently reject - not every qualitive footway has a
> traffic sign nor has every traffic sign a qualitative
> footway - although a traffic sign can help in making
> these decisions.
>
> Also abusing `highway=path` for shared infrastructure
> cycle/pedestrian infrastructure is something I loathe:
> it erases a lot of information and is an effective
> downgrade of the relevant ways from a routeplanning
> perspective, as we have to assume the way is a desire
> path (small, unpaved); not accessible to e.g.
> wheelchairs, strollers and rollerskate, instead of the
> very accessible nicely paved, wide footway. To be able
> to replicate all the information for this downgrade,
> we would need `surface=*`, `width=*`, `smoothness=*`
> and maybe even `wheelchair=*` to be sure it is a
> highly qualitative footway and quite a bit of tricky
> and inexact preprocessing. However, I do not have a
> perfect solution for the shared footways/cycleways as
> well - but marking as path is definitively worse.
> So, Marc_marc: I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you
> and some of the wiki definitions! But that is fine - a
> disagreement is often due to a different perspective
> or some missing information. And OSM won't fail over a
> bit of disagreement ;)
>
>
> *Some history*
>
> Apart from my vision, it is also important to know
> that OpenStreetMap started in the UK, where there are
> plenty of vicinal roads. I think those where
> historically mapped as highway=footway too, but I'm
> not sure of that. Furthermore, as Gerard nicely stated
> earlier, it is a common translation error.
>
> Furhtermore, the iD editor used to "upgrade" tags: a
> `highway=footway + bicycle=yes` and `highway=cycleway
> + foot=yes` got upgraded to `highway=path;
> bicycle=yes; foot=yes`. As the iD editor is widely
> used, there are quite some footways downgraded now...
>
> Kind regards,
> Pieter
>
> On 18.02.21 10:27, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I would like to know if there is some kind of
> consensus in Belgium regarding the use of
> <footway> and <path> tags.
> My intuitive interpretation in the following :
>
> * a footway, generally speaking, is anything
> that is specifically created for pedestrians
> in urbanised areas.
> * a path, is generally speaking anything that is
> not a track (thus not for 4 wheeled vehicles)
> and not (as well) paved like a footway.
>
> I know there are other much more loose
> interpretations that say that a footway might be a
> non-paved path, but my question is : why would one
> tag them differently than others ? After all, a
> path is not suitable for anything else than
> pedestrian use (except sometimes bikes) ? On the
> contrary, footways in urbanised places *are*
> special and it makes sense to map them differently.
> I observe that some mappers are using the footway
> tags for paths in forests or fields in the middle
> of nowhere. Those are often "sentiers communaux"
> (public paths) mapped by balnam affiliates. Its
> driving me nuts 😊
> - most of the time this difference in the way
> those paths are mapped doesn't reflect any
> physical nor practical reality on the field.
> - this creates vagueness and looseness, I see
> "normal" paths suddenly showed as "special" on
> maps without any clear reason.
> - some could argument that the path tag is not
> detailed enough. That's not true : it can be (and
> is) combined with a lot of other tags to qualify
> it from multiple point of views and renderers are
> already taking care of them. This is *not* the
> case of the footway which is (logically) kind of
> monolithic.
> The only exception I see is a path in the country
> side that is explicitly marked (road signs) as
> pedestrian only, and/or has turnstiles or other
> gates to keep other users away.
> Do you generally agree with my way of seeing
> things ? Is it at least the general way of doing
> things in Belgium ? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> Matthieu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210222/dfc5d397/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list