[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Martin Simon]

sorry, wrong address, forwarded again...


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Simon <grenzdebil at gmail.com>
Date: 2009/8/10
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
To: Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com>


2009/8/10 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com>:
> 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.

If this is what it says, the German page is wrong and needs some work,
while the english one is right.

"Path" was and is intended to provide an alternative tagging scheme
for things tagged with footway/bridleway/cycleway before that is not
biased mode-of-transport-wise.

With path, you can distinguish between e.g. officially designated
"footways" and those that have no designation at all.
Furthermore, it is possible to tag combined cycle/foot/whateverways
without discriminating one of the modes of transport. (like with
"highway=cycleway, foot=yes" before)

-Martin