[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Craig Wallace]

On 11/08/2009 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
> _When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists
> on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way
> was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one
> couldn't know what others consider suitable, but I hold the view that
> most people can relate to what others think, if they have ever ridden a
> bicycle after childhood. The best example I've come up with so far is
> that if your mother asked "should I cycle on it" you'd instantly know
> the answer (most of the time anyway):
> "definitively" (cycleway) or
> "you could" (footway + bicycle=yes) or
> "no, you shouldn't" (footway)
So what about things like mountain bike trails, signed or otherwise? 
There's plenty that I wouldn't advise my mother to cycle on, but I 
wouldn't describe them as a footway. For some of them, it may be not 
recommended to walk along them.

And even if they are signed for mountain biking, I don't think its a 
good idea to tag idea it as a cycleway. Cycleway implies a reasonable 
quality surface and no extreme obstacles etc, and can be used on a 
'normal' bike.