[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Tom Chance]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:09:20 +0200, Martin Simon wrote:
> 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").

This is all very nice, but doesn't solve the problem - actually it
illustrates it.

You've just explained that there are two different ways of tagging the same
thing, and suggested that both are equally valid. That's pointless and
confusing.

Either we really do deprecate footway/cycleway/etc. and force people to
more fully describe these ways; tools like Potlatch and JOSM could offer
bundles of tags for common defaults like "this is a footpath, ergo
highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=yes + motorbike=no".

Or we find a way to consistently qualify footway, cycleway, bridleway and
perhaps a new "highway=path" for miscellaneous little paths, to suit the
legal complications of 195 countries. But we don't start using highway=path
as a catch-all for footways, cycleways, bridleways and others just because
we can capture the same meaning using access, surface, width and other
tags.

Which do we go for? We can't have this stupid, unclear fudge.

Regards,
Tom