[OSM-talk] Map features: slight alteration to the 'highway' definitions?

[Nick Whitelegg]

In view of issues raised here in the last couple of days and my own 
observations mapping the countryside, I'm wondering whether it would be a 
good idea to recommend revising the use of the 'highway' tag for 
non-vehicular ways. In particular, two of the existing 'highway' 
definitions are 'footway' and 'bridleway'. To my mind however, 'highway' 
represents the type of way and says nothing about its permissions. 
'footway' and 'bridleway' imply permissions (as does 'cycleway' as it 
happens...) Permissions are covered by foot|horse|bicycle|motorcar = 
yes|no|permissive|private already, thus there is no real need to duplicate 
them.

The following set of values for non-vehicular highways would seem to be 
more appropriate for describing the *type* of way....

unsurfaced: a rough gravel or mud track
surfaced_path:  a concrete path, typically found in urban areas
path: a regular path
minor_path: a narrow path, not as well defined as 'path'. 

Any thoughts?

Nick