[Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Thu Dec 10 16:36:21 UTC 2020

I believe you're incorrect.

Cycleways can be shared use with pedestrians, & almost always are in the UK.

Cycleway/footway/path tags are not based on usage figures. Cycleway 
allows for two modes of transport, footway allows one.  Likewise 
'bridleway' allows for three modes - horse/bicycle/foot.

The path tag was an invention after contributors got confused by the 
above. It should be removed from the database.

Your 'surface' comment is irrelevant to your problem.

Tagging *incorrectly* to suit the renderer/router should not occur, but 
given it's a part of a NCN route, this is clearly a correct tag.


On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:
> I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural
> shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as
> highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path,
> bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply
> to it).
> My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater
> number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for
> both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore
> not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though
> so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
> His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is
> not configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as
> highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88,
> as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route.
> Both of which are very much true, and are tagged with the
> appropriate relations to reflect this.
> 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.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759
> Thank you,
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201210/be48b728/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list