[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Apollinaris Schoell]

+1

On Aug 10, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

> I'll say what I always say these days whenever this subject comes  
> up :-)
>
> That is, I believe the "highway" tag should represent the physical
> surface, not the rights. My current views on this are:
>
> highway=track - a dirt/stone track, theoretically usable for off road
> vehicles (though not necessarily any legal right)
> highway=path - a narrow path, typically with mud/stone surface
> highway=path; surface=paved - a concrete path typically used in urban
> areas, what most people are using "footway" for
>
> Then, the actual rights should be defines using foot, horse, etc.  
> foot=yes
> has more or less become unusable, as different people mean different
> things, so therefore foot should be no, private, permissive (use  
> granted
> by landowner) or designated (a legal right, such as a UK public  
> footpath,
> or - though my knowledge of German or Swiss law on rights of way is  
> not
> good - waymarked paths in Germany or Switzerland such as the "yellow
> diamond" routes in the Schwarzwald or the red/white waymarked mountain
> paths in Switzerland).
>
> As an alternative to foot/horse etc one could use the "designation"  
> tag
> such as designation=public_footpath or public_bridleway,
> designation=cycleway for an official cycleway, or (at a guess for
> Switzerland, I may be wrong)  "gelb", "rot/weiss" and "blau/weiss"  
> for the
> different types of path with different difficulties.
>
> Things like highway=bridleway or cycleway I would prefer to see
> deprecated, and replaced by path/track with surface/bicycle/horse  
> tags,
> though I still tag with them as that is the generally-accepted way of
> tagging bridleways and cycleways.
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk