[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 13 10:46:35 BST 2009


Useful summary (wish I had seen it before I just posted mine!) ... I agree -
mostly - with "unjoining designated" in "solution 1" ... I am less happy
with introducing "=official" as we already seem to have made some recent
progress in Ekkehart's direction with the use of "designated".

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Nop [mailto:ekkehart at gmx.de] 
Sent: 13 August 2009 10:02
To: talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway


Hi!


This discussion seems to be going the same way as it always does - in
circles. :-)

So I'd like to try again for a more general statement and summary.

The need for change

First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem and
that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again been
many mails along the line "It is easy and can all be done following existing
definitions - if it is done my way". But this is simply not true, the wiki
_is_ contradicting itself.


The Fuzziness

If I summarize all different, contradicitory positions mentioned, what is
the meaning if we see footway or cycleway today if we don't know who has
tagged it according to which interpretation?

highway=cycleway : road-signed or waymarked or suitable/allowed for bicycles
or intended for bicycles or intended for mixed use with primary use bicycle

bicycle=designated : the same as highway=cycleway by wiki definition

highway=footway : road-signed or waymarked or suitable/allowed for
pedestrians or intended for pedestrians or intended for mixed use with
primary use pedestrians

foot=designated : the same as highway=footway by wiki definition

In theory, bridleway has the same problems, but it seems that so far nobody
has cared about bridleways and so there are not as many contradicting
interpretations attached.


Conclusion

If you don't really care about foot/cycleways or if you are in a country
  where the rules of traffic generally allow mixed use, this is ok.

If you want to tag the strict use cases of legal dedication in Germany or
France, this is insufficient. The basic problem is also apparent: A good
definition should be unambigous and not include the word "or". :-)


Solution attempts

Finally, I cannot resist the temptation anymore and have to present the two
possible solutions I have arrived at. Both are minimum impact solutions and
only take into account the currently known use cases.

Proposal #1: Unjoin designated

Get rid of the idea that cycleway is the same thing as bicycle=designated.
Accept that foot/cycleway is fuzzy. Redefine designated to be only used for
legally dedicated ways. Likewise seperate foot=designated from footway.

This way, foot/cycleway can be used for the lenient use cases like today,
but designated can be used to tag the strict use cases.

Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication

Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are
as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information
on possible use, but not about the legal situation. 
Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of
road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication.

This way, nothing needs to be changed in existing fuzzy tagging, but real
foot/cycleways are simply tagged by adding an "official" or changing
designated to official if appropriate.


And again: I believe that these two ways would work as a solution and that
they would cause little impact. But I will be happy with any complete and
workable solution. In any way we would still have to come to an agreement
and implement it the same way in renderers and editors - which seem near
impossible.

bye
	Nop













More information about the talk mailing list