[Talk-us-massachusetts] highway=footpath vs highway=path

[Jason Remillard]

Hi,

I have given up on any kind distinction between highway=footway, and
highway=path. The actual usage is all over the place. Data consumers can't
rely on it. Also, the main osm renderer has given up too, and renders them
the same way.

My advice is to use whatever you want, highway=footway or highway=path, and
add surface, access, foot, etc tags if able.

Also, it is not widely used, I use the operator= tag to convey who
maintains a trail, which is often a different group than the land owner
because my custom maps need to color them differently.

Jason

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:38 AM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

> Marc Sevigny <marc.sevigny at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > I'm recording trails (woodland paths) and have been using
> highway=footpath,
>
> I think you mean highway=footway.
>
> > since that seems the standard in my region.  The OpenStreetmap Wiki seems
> > to suggest that path might be the better value.  Footpath seems better
> > suited to sidewalks and other places for pedestrians where no motorized
> > vehicles are allowed.  Advice needed.
>
> This is somewhat messy, but your summary is basically 100% right about
> the distinction with respect to what's arguably the majority view.
>
>
> See also
>
>   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Massachusetts/Conservation
>
> which should address this but doesn't (yet!).  Let's hear from others
> before I change it.
>
>
>
> Overall, most people think that
>
>   highway=path foot=designated
>
> is equal to
>
>   highway=footway
>
> in a narrow technical sense.    Both are unclear on bicycle and horse,
> and need explicit tagging.
>
> Also, there is a notion that highway=footway is an in-town
> probably-paved kind of thing where you can use regular shoes and
> probably not even get ticks, and highway=path is more of a woods thing.
>
> Of course, all ways would ideally have surface and width.
>
> Joe (paraphrasing him quite likely slightly wrong) has asked that people
> use path for 'trails' and footway for 'sidewalks'.  The idea is that
> somebody rendering a "trail map" needs to be able to tell things that
> deserve showing even zoomed out vs things that are details useful for
> pedestrian routing but not really in the overall perception of things.
>
>
> Long ago, I added trails as highway=footway, and having heard Joe's
> request I am now using highway=path, and adding foot=designated if there
> is a basis for believing that walking usage is somehow the preferred
> mode.  Many places have notions that others must yield to pedestrians,
> that bikes/horses aer allowed only on some traila, or banned when wet,
> etc.
>
>
> Your question might be prompted by my recent editing :-)
>
> I recently retagged all of Delaney Flood Control/WMA from highway=footway
> to
> path/foot=designated, believing from memory and spot checking that I was
> the one to enter at least most of those long ago.  I view this as minor
> cleanup that doesn't change that much.
>
> I also fixed the main access from footway back to track.  I had made it
> track originally, as it is quite passable by vehicle, but someone
> changed it to footway a few years ago.  I left them a changeset comment
> about what I did -- but there is no way that footway is correct for the
> main road over the dam.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
> Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20200403/f2664ee9/attachment.htm>