[Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:
> (snipped)
>
> I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that 
> I ask the community here to see what the consensus is.
> I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the 
> sole reason being because it renders differently.

... actually I got a PM about this; I hadn't realised it was intended as 
a DWG question!

For completeness, the bits of my reply that were the answer to the 
question were as follows:

    Around the world people use both of these taggings, and often
    renderers will render them the same.

    In the UK, something like I imagine
    https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/582204090/history
    <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/582204090/history> to be would
    typically be tagged “cycleway” even though it’s shared-use; in
    Germany it’d be typically “path”. Someone once did a bit of mailing
    list archaeology about the origins of “highway=path” within OSM (it
    wasn’t one of the original ones) and there are a couple of theories
    about where it came from.

    Some people have strong views on this - for example
    https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
    <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333> .

(and in answer to the renderer question)

    Indeed, “how it renders in a particular renderer” is rarely a good
    reason to tag something a particular way.

    However, it doesn’t look from
    http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=582204090
    <http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=582204090> that the status
    quo here was “cycleway” before you changed it, so I’d probably lean
    that way.

Best Regards,

Andy



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201210/3ad9a75e/attachment.htm>