[Talk-GB] designated cycleway, designated bridleway, designated footway
gravitystorm at gmail.com
Thu Aug 2 19:28:53 BST 2007
On 8/2/07, Rik van der Helm <rik at the-quickest.com> wrote:
> My main question now is how should I tag
> footpathes without a 'legal way of right' ?
> Shaun McDonald replied:
> > The difference between a track and a path is more in the
> > surface quality, rather than the width. A path is normally
> > paved, whereas a track is more gravel, or more likely 2
> > dips, where tractor wheels have been, often with grass in
> > the middle.
> Maybe you can help me on on this. I was thinking about using
> the 'width' distinction because of the desription of 'track'
> in the map_features "unpaved/unsealed roads for agricultural
> use; gravel roads in the forest etc.". My own visualization of
> 'path' is something which is defenitely not a 'road'. My own
> visualization of 'path' is also not something which is by
> definition 'paved'. But I really like to hear if I am biased
> on this, so I can try to adapt myself on a more general view.
I'm not in agreement with Shaun when he says that a path is normally
paved. For me the difference is in width or how it was created - track
is big enough for vehicles, path is for people.
More information about the Talk-GB