[Talk-GB] Ways with path vs footway

[Dave F]

On 13/12/2021 12:43, Mat Attlee wrote:
> I was looking at the map for Wanstead Park after a recent survey and 
> noticed the ways are a mix of path and footway and I'm wondering what 
> is the right approach? Am I correct in assuming that footway is 
> generally used for dedicated and often paved footpaths whilst the 
> unpaved parts in the park would be better modelled as a path?


I usually amend the 'path' tag to 'footway' when I come across it as i 
believe it causes far too much confusion & errors .

When I first start contributing to OSM in 2009/10 the discussion of 
highway=path usage was promoted because a few contributors 
misinterpreted shared use highway=cycleway/bridleway ways, presuming the 
tags defined a higher priority for certain users. They don't; they 
indicate an increase in different transport modes. ie

footway = pedestrians only
cycleway = bicycle riders & pedestrians.
bridleway = horse riders, bicycle riders & pedestrians.

If a cycleway is dedicated just for bicycles then a restrictive access 
tag should be added ie foot=no.

Neither footway or path automatically implies legal access. To do so, 
add 'access' sub-tags.
Similar for their condition or size - use 'surface', 'width', 'incline' etc

For designated Public Rights Of Way (PROW) I add:
designation=public_footpath/public_bridleway/ 
designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic/restricted_byway

prow_ref=* can be used to indicate a path's reference number. The format 
of that should be as defined by the appropriate local authority, not, as 
some have suggested, using an in-house OSM specific format which means 
nothing to anybody.

You'll note that the 'standard' rendering makes no differentiation 
between path & footway.

DaveF