[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Lauri Kytömaa]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
> 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).

The last time I was in Germany most of the signed-for-cycling ways were
of the "combined cycle and footway" type. We have both types of signs
here too, ("combined use" vs. "cycles only" 100 to 1 I'd say, or even
more), but I haven't yet seen a only-for-cyclists way that didn't have a
footway somewhere really near (within 10 meters) - which kind of makes
it irrelevant for a pedestrian looking at a map - there's then just one
way he may use, not the cycleway he chose from the map; software knows
which one can be used no matter cycleway or footway, when they're tagged
with correct foot/bicycle=designated/yes/no.

But that's a rendering issue anyway - either add something to the
rendering to show the "both allowed" or the cycleway + foot=no as
something different from those where foot=yes or foot=designated.

>"designated" in a dictionary it means "marked with a sign" and it is the
>only/most fitting tag for the purpose anyway, so in Germany
>bicycle=designated must mean foot=no, so it cannot be the same as

Why not always add the foot=no when it's the "only for cycles" sign -
and foot=designated when it's combined use? When not tagged it's just 
incomplete data: foot=unknown - someone will add it sooner or later.

-- 
Alv