[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Dave Stubbs osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Mon Aug 10 12:58:01 BST 2009


On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Tom Chance<tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:13:39 +0200, Martin Simon wrote:
>> "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)
>
> If this is the proper conclusion of the voting then the tag is a complete,
> hopeless mess!
>
> Since the vote very clearly opposed deprecating footway, cycleway, and
> bridleway we must now have two parallel tagging schemas that are marking
> exactly the same features with more or less the same information in a
> different way.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path
>
> Germans use highway=path for paths of any description fields and forests,
> Italians for paths in the countryside, English-speaking mappers either for
> miscellaneous little footpaths or as a wholesale replacement of
> footway/cycleway/bridleway, and in a few places people seem to just be
> making random distinctions (like footpaths in cemeteries).
>
> The result is a totally unclear fudge which leaves us either with
> needlessly complicated maps, or stylesheets with a long string of "this or
> that or that or that" definitions to describe near-identical features that
> should be rendered in the same way.
>
> It just makes me despair about the anarchic approach we have towards
> tagging. It's almost as bad as the utterly pointless (and still unresolved)
> distinctions around wood/forest. It's absolutely fine to create a new tag
> for a new feature, do what you want! But it's crazy that we let random
> unaccountable groups of wiki users change the rules for basic features like
> footpaths without having any sufficient processes and tools to make sure
> this then gets full agreement, clear documentation and proper enforcement.
>

Anarchy in tagging died a bit back when some guys on the wiki decided
ochlocracy was the way to go.
Tagging used to be occasionally a confused mess.
Now it's an organised, and "approved" confused mess where anyone with
a clue automatically withdraws from discussions to keep their sanity
intact (and to give them some more time to go and actually map
something), knowing full well that not being there won't make much
difference to the eventual stupid decision.

Gah... must... be... more... positive...

Dave




More information about the talk mailing list