[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:
>
>> makes, at least in Germany, a big (legal) difference...
>
> That isn't the case in other places, in some states of Australia you are allowed to cycle on foot paths, but the primary purpose is for pedestrians and they have right of way over cyclists.
>
> In other areas there are cycle paths and pedestrians are allowed but they aren't the primary users intended to use the way and cyclists mostly use them. So yes there would be information lost by simplifying things in the way you describe.

Well, I don't see why highway=path + proper access/designation tags
can be a simplification compared to a simple "cycleway" or "footway".
For your footway example, I would suggest either highway=footway,
bicycle=yes or highway=path, foot=designated("this is intended for
pedestrians by law"), bicycle=yes("bicycles are also allowed to use
this way, but only as guests").

We have this kind of footway (among other variants) here, too.

>> Information loss, no difference, no problem. :-)
>
> That might be true for Germany, but it isn't for other parts of the world.

No, this can be used everywhere. :-)

-Martin