[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Roy Wallace waldo000000 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 10 23:33:01 BST 2009


On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM, John Smith<delta_foxtrot at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In other areas there are cycle paths and pedestrians are allowed but they aren't the primary users intended to use the way and cyclists mostly use them. So yes there would be information lost by simplifying things in the way you describe.

Is tagging the "primary users intended to use the way" verifiable? If
not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway
necessarily the best way to tag it? (I'm unsure). How about a
compromise, e.g. for a "cyclists mostly use" path:

highway=path
bicycle=designated (or yes, if not signed)
foot=yes (or designated, if signed)
primary_use=bicycle

Just a suggestion. It does seem to be more explicit than inferring a
"primary use" from the highway=* value.




More information about the talk mailing list