[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Lauri Kytömaa]

Quote Key:highway:
"It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the importance
of the highway."
(Was until last week:)
" ... of the physical structure of the highway".

Either way, the highway tag itself should (IMO) convey they primary 
description of the highway - the distinction between two highway tags 
should be significant, not just a different sign if the allowed foot/cycle 
users are the same.

For a cycling user (prove me wrong!) it's not important if the light 
traffic way where he may cycle is signed as "no motor vehicles" or 
"cycleway" or "combined cycle and footway". A router (yeah, it's not the 
only use for map data) may choose to prefer some type of those over others 
if they think there's some reasonable difference in expected travel speeds 
- but it's not the main attribute of the way. Given other tags are the 
same (at least surface, width, lit) they're all alike; for pedestrians 
too.

If that user is on foot, it's even more so, if there's a foot=yes on
the cycleways or if it is assumed default. There's a much bigger
difference between ways planned and constructed for pedestrian and
cycle traffic vs. the ways that have emerged from erosion caused by
people walking that way.

My point: I don't see a point in _not_ tagging ways such as these: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-nomotortraffic.jpg
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-lighttraffic.jpg
as cycleways with either foot=yes or foot=designated, respectively.

-- 
Alv