[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Nick Whitelegg]

Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> 
Sent by: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
10/08/2009 23:2

To
Martin Simon <grenzdebil at gmail.com>
cc
talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway






On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Martin Simon<grenzdebil at gmail.com> wrote:
> So you could tag a footway which also allows bicycles as
> highway=footway,bicycle=yes(assuming "footway" implies
> foot=designated)

The thing is though it doesn't necessary imply this. There are examples of 
highway=footway which are *private* paths not accessible legally to the 
public (or only through payment of an entrance fee) e.g. the paths within 
a paid-for tourist attraction (Marwell Zoo is a local example for me) or 
the paths on a private housing estate.

> or as highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=yes. No
> Information loss, no difference, no problem. :-)

TBH I'd deprecate "yes" because it's got too much ambiguity. Ask yourself: 
is there a *legal right* for that mode of transit to use that path, or is 
it at the discretion of the landowner (who could be a private landowner, 
or a council or government). If the former, use "designated". If the 
latter, use "permissive".

So a paved (concrete) cycle path where cyclists have a legal right and 
pedestrians don't, could be

highway=path; surface=paved; bicycle=designated; foot=no

or if both have a legal right

highway=path; surface=paved; bicycle=designated; foot=designated

or if cyclists are allowed by an informal (and often retractable) 
permission of the landowner, whereas pedestrians have a legal right:

highway=path; surface=paved; bicycle=permissive; foot=designated

I believe that this would work anywhere in the world, as I would imagine 
that all modes of transit have either a right, an informal/retractable 
right, or no right to use a given way. Please correct me if I'm wrong 
though.

Nick