[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Elizabeth Dodd edodd at billiau.net
Mon Aug 10 12:27:28 BST 2009


On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Martin Simon wrote:
> 2009/8/10 Liz <edodd at billiau.net>:
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
> >> - Some mappers are applying footway and cycleway rather indiscriminately
> >> to all sorts of ways so it basically only means "not for cars" in some
> >> areas
> >>
> >> In short: It's a mess. :-)
> >
> > would a suggestion made on the talk-au list in which highway=footway and
> > highway=cycleway be deprecated and be replaced by
> > path=cycleway
> > path=footway
> > path=shared
> > be logically consistent with the German legal status of cycleways and
> > footways?
>
> What does path=shared stand for? Shared between cyclists and
> pedestrians, pedestrians and horse riders or all three(as seen in
> Belgium, for example)?
>
> As highway=path was introduced to seperate the highway tag from the
> access tags and allow tagging of the legal status more clearly(not
> just in Germany), why not just use it as intended? This doesn't mean
> we have to throw awy everything tagged with
> footway/cycleway/bridleway...
>
> -Martin


The question is exploring the logic.
From your answer you want to know more about shared
It is hard to explore the logic with people vigorously defending a position 
and not answering the question.
The underlying point is should highway be used at all where motorised vehicles 
are not wanted?
At this stage we are just exploring the question, and asking if this different 
system would fit in another place.





More information about the talk mailing list