[OSM-talk-ie] Paths & footpaths

Nick Burrett nick at sqrt.co.uk
Thu Apr 29 20:17:50 UTC 2021

I think footway is redundant tag and should be obsoleted. Path serves the
same use and is more versatile. I see a slight difference between path and
track but even then the difference is small.

On Thu 29 Apr 2021, 06:57 Colm Moore, <colmmoore72 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi again,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path
> 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?
> Colm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CADCG23Ky5bCfozfS4_nC0ybwy4KbY7Oquc167DF-90AJNDC7AA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Colm,
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

More information about the Talk-ie mailing list