[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Simon <grenzdebil at gmail.com> writes:

> 2009/8/11 Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de>:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Lauri Kytömaa schrieb:
>>> _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.
>>
>> This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the
>> German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are
>> having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk
>> on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be
>> suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it
>> is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestrian).
>
> +11
>
> This is also true (and occurs more often) the other way round (cycling
> is forbidden on "real" footways in Germany, unless there is an extra
> sign that allows it).
> And I strongly don't believe this is solely a German problem...


I see the point that one has to figure out the rules and then tag, but I
don't see how highway=footway or highway=cycleway vs highway=path makes
a difference.

For highway=cycleway, clearly bicycle=designated is implied.  But we
have to just define whether foot=yes or foot=no is the default, and then
tag the exceptions.  In the US, every bike path I've seen has also
allowed pedestrians, so I'd be inclined to have foot=yes be the default,
but I realize other places have different rules.

With highway=path bicycle=designated there is the same ambiguity about
the default for foot.

So how does footway/cycleway vs path make any difference in determining
the default?  Or is the argument really that one group should have
different defaults to make tagging more convenient?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090811/caf2231a/attachment.pgp>