[OSM-talk-ie] Paths & footpaths

Colm Moore colmmoore72 at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 29 05:55:47 UTC 2021

Hi again,


I have always taken the difference to be the level of formality of a route, not whether cyclists are allowed by default. What are other people's thoughts?



Message: 1
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:51:28 +0100
From: Tony Furnell <tonyfurnell at gmail.com>
To: talk-ie at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Debugging
        <CADCG23Ky5bCfozfS4_nC0ybwy4KbY7Oquc167DF-90AJNDC7AA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


Thanks for the debugging tools.

I have a thought on one of those points -

>   * Footpaths (generally paved) mapped as paths (generally unpaved).

Personally I default to using the "path" tag rather than "footpath" and
only use the footpath tag where the way is signposted specifically as a
"footpath", or has a restriction such as "no bicycles". Otherwise I opt for
"path" by default because it is invariably unclear on the ground whether
the pathway is there for foot traffic alone, or for bikes and pedestrians,
etc. In fact, if there is nothing that says bicycles are not allowed on it
(aside from pavements and road crossings of course), then I'm pretty
certain cycles are allowed on it. Where possible I then add paved/unpaved
(or specific surface if known).

I hadn't been aware of "footpath" being for generally paved or "path" being
for generally unpaved. My only consideration has been that of the access
specifications, where the path tag tends to automatically allow both foot &
cycle unless specified otherwise, while footpath only allows foot access
(cycle remains "not specified"). Given the rarity of "no cycle" permissions
on the ground, it tends to be the case that bicycles can legally use the
path if they wish.

More information about the Talk-ie mailing list