[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Martin Simon]

2009/8/10 John Smith <delta_foxtrot at yahoo.com>:
>
> --- On Mon, 10/8/09, Martin Simon <grenzdebil at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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)
>
> How do you propose to highlight the primary purpose?

In the case of a combinet cycle and footway in germany, there is no
primary purpose, pedestrians and cyclists have equal rights on these
ways. So I tag "highway=path,bicycle=designated,foot=designated".


> Cyclists want to know the best cycle path, the fact that cycling is allowed doesn't give enough information, and in fact by reducing these ways to a simple path + allowed uses information would be lost.

It's not about allowing cycling(like official fooways that _also_
allow bicycles as "guests"), it's about official designation. This
makes, at least in Germany, a big (legal) difference...
So you could tag a footway which also allows bicycles as
highway=footway,bicycle=yes(assuming "footway" implies
foot=designated) or as highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=yes. No
Information loss, no difference, no problem. :-)

-Martin