[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Lester Caine]

Liz wrote:
> 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?

Following on from the 'discussion' on this list ...
drop highway=cycleway and highway=foot?

Add separate tracks for the footpaths associated with a highway
footway=side
footway=in_verge

I currently HAVE a highway=secondary, and now I need to add the detail such as 
which side there is a 'sidewalk' or path isolated from the main way by a grass 
verge. We ONLY need the one highway= as that provides the vehicle routing, but 
that is not suitable for pedestrian use ( although it can be ). There are 
sections of footpath running alongside the road, or in the verge, and the 
pedestrian has to cross the road at some points to follow the safe footway ... 
along with footpaths isolated from the main road, but which are the pedestrian 
route associated with the 'highway'.

Separate cycleways get their own tags as well, which may also be the prefered 
foot route, but I think that what is now adding to the confusion is creating 
additional 'highway' routes, which are not really part of the 'highway' grid? 
We separate waterway and indicate their tow-paths, but these really form part 
of the footpath grid rather than the canal network.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php