[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Lester Caine]

Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> For my mind this starts to be far too complicated for most of the mappers and
> users as well. Let's assume there is a smallish way/path/track or whatever it is
> called. Anyway, something that is not meant for car traffic. I would believe
> that majority of people would be satisfied if they just knew if they are allowed
> to walk or cycle along that way/track/path. This need could be satisfied with
> two toggle switches and four resulting combinations:
> walking=yes/cycling=yes, walking=yes/cycling=no, walking=no/cycling=yes,
> walking=no/cycling=no.

If one is just looking at the 'macro' level, then highway=footway/path for 
those routes that have no connection to a vehicle way does make perfect sense, 
but in many areas now, the basic grid structure of roads is now well 
established, and we are looking to add finer detail. I have no problem with 
highway=? for pedestrian only sections of that grid, but using the same for 
micromapping the complex pavement/path structure AROUND a highway=? simply 
does not make sense. One needs a simple filter like 'only display highway' 
that removes the micromapping level of detail? MOVING existing highway=footway 
to their own footway=path makes sense logically, but does introduce the 
problem of how do you indicate these footpaths on lower scale maps.

> This information would be enough for me at least when walking or cycling in a
> city. Other information that would be useful for more advanced and sophisticated
> use could be given with additional tags. I can imagine myself feeding
> information about paved/unpaved surface sometimes.

I've already given the example in London where the VEHICLE routes have no 
relevance to the pedestrian route, and it was looking at this that first 
prompted me to suggest that 'footway=?' although exactly what goes in the ? is 
a little vague. 'pavement' could probably be defined as a sidewalk linked to 
the highway by a kerb, 'path' for something having grass verges either side, 
perhaps with the highway=? having a sub tag of side:left=grass indicating that 
the two are separated by grass, side:left=fence would then make sense where a 
vehicle or pedestrian safety barrier exists. (Although left and right are 
ambiguous to my way of thinking - on highway elements that can be going either 
way, and reversing direction of a way may affect tags). A little aside here is 
the indication of the high hedges that form the sides of many roads in - for 
example - Cornwall. Some indication that in addition to 'no passing places' 
there are actually no PEDESTRIAN safety areas comes into this micro mapping 
detail?

I think that there needs to be a 'committee' to discuss the macro/micro 
mapping differences required, but at the end of the day, the sub tagging 
relating to 'pedestrian' details should be consistent. cycleway details should 
then naturally layer into what ever structure is agreed?

-- 
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