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

Tue Feb 23 14:54:30 UTC 2021

In the UK one cannot ride a bicycle on a public footpath. Very often, it is
physically impossible.
I think we are making each other angry for almost no reasons. We wight even
consider refining the rules, but I agree with François that he follows
official rules. The disputed paths only concern a very minimum of the whole
lot. So, François, your time spent is not to be considered as wasted!
I used to tag everything with footway, nowadays I only use it for exclusive
pedestrian use. Slow roads in Belgium can be used (even when they are not
referenced!) for all types of users that can use the width of the path and
that are not excluded by roadsigns. So, technically, a footway does not
apply.
We might even consider to put the slowroads Belgium page to a vote or how
does this process work?

Op ma 22 feb. 2021 om 13:55 schreef Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:

> Originally, the highway-tags comes from the UK. So highway=footpath really
> means a small road designated for pedestrians. They are signposted like
> that. I'm not really sure, but I think that this classification does not
> mean that you cannot ride on it with a bicycle.
>
> The Germans and others didn't like this, as they do not know roads that
> are footpaths, so they introduced highway=path.
> And then things became very messy. And then the standard renderer started
> showing things in the same way.
>
> I think many people say highway=footway and highway=path, foot=designated
> (bicycle =no) are synonymous. Surface, nor location play a role.
>
> Some people as HW=footway has to be paved, and in a town, etc., but this
> all was added later and is afaik not accepted all over the world. Sidewalks
> are not paved in all countries, hence it is not a good idea to require that.
>
> I think there is no general consensus, not in Belgium, not in the rest of
> the world on whether once should use path or footway. For me, HW= footway
> is just a shortcut for HW=path + foot=designated,bicycle=no.
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 9:34 AM Francois Gerin <francois.gerin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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. 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>
>> 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
>>
>> and
>>
>> 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 - but that 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 listTalk-be at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>> --
>> Met vriendelijke groeten,
>> Pieter Vander Vennet
>>
>> --
>> Met vriendelijke groeten,
>> Pieter Vander Vennet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing listTalk-be at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing listTalk-be at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>> 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/20210223/a2d08e55/attachment-0001.htm>