[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Richard Mann]

The German-language page is quite a bit clearer - it says use "path" in
forests and fields (I think).

Plus for cycleways that are segregated by line (hmm - this looks like a
bodge; at least it's precise).

The English-language page suffered from enthusiastic editing by people who
thought path might lead to footway/cycleway ceasing to be required
(unlikely). And the result does need tidying up.

Richard

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:

>
> Hi there,
>
> I'm 100% unclear about the distinction between highway=path and
> highway=footway.
>
> Paths and footways, which seem to be used for the same sorts of ways by
> different mappers, both show up differently on the main map. The Mapnik and
> Tiles at Home stylesheets have quite enough different way styles already,
> adding more just makes it even harder for your average user to interpret.
> So I think it’s important that we define the difference more clearly and
> apply it more consistently.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
>
> The wiki page above, and the voting page for the proposal, suggest that
> highway=path should be used where you don’t really think footway,
> cycleway, bridleway, track and others are suitable. But then it suggests
> using highway=path with a subset of tags in place of highway=bridleway,
> which contradicts the first explanation.
>
> I can only think of a few circumstances where I wouldn’t just opt for
> footway – little unofficial paths here and there in parks, across small
> bits of grass in towns and in the countryside. But I’ve seen path crop up
> in lots of situations where the other highway tags would be good enough.
>
> Which is it to be?
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090810/e7089885/attachment.html>