[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Roy Wallace]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Nop<ekkehart at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> 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.

+1

> 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.

If "footway/cycleway is fuzzy" in terms of current usage (and I
believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that
"designated" mean "signed". This stays true to "mapping what is on the
ground", and separates legal issues from geographical/physical
features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the
current usage of "designated" (correct me if I'm wrong). For example,
in Australia you may be "legally" allowed to ride a bicycle on a
footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as
"bicycle=designated". You can often "legally" ride a bike on an
Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with
"bicycle=designated".

> 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.

I'd recommend highway=path with *=yes for the "lenient use cases"
(which would make footway/cycleway redundant). But I've been told that
highway=path has already been voted against in the past :(

> 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.

I don't really see the advantage of having a fuzzy definition of
"designated". I would recommend using "yes" to indicate a fuzzy
"recommendation" or "suitability". And if you don't think
"suitability" should be tagged, you could feel free to ignore the
"*=yes" tags.