[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Nick Whitelegg]

>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)

For the "unsigned way assumed to be suitable for cycling", but with no 
definite legal right, I would use "bicycle=permissive". In other words the 
assumption is that the owner of the path/land does not mind cyclists using 
it. Then, if it turns out that they do mind, we can change it to 
bicycle=no. 

I would apply a similar approach to paths too. I have no idea of exactly 
what the German law is on this, but when I was in the Schwarzwald last 
month, the paths/tracks in the forest were either waymarked by 
yellow/red/blue diamonds, or not waymarked at all (apart from the 
occasional "Betreten verboten"). 

I have not got round to marking these up yet, but my intention (German 
users, please feel free to tell me otherwise!) would be to tag the 
waymarked paths as

highway=path|track; foot=designated

and the unwaymarked tracks as

highway=track; foot=permissive

if I saw evidence of use e.g. someone walking along one, or simply

highway=track

if I literally didn't know whether the track was OK to use or not. (I 
would do the same in the uk)

Nick