[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Mike Harris]

Roy writes:

>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).

But have you seen?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

Which has solved a host of problems and ambiguities for me at least. This is
a very clear - not 'fuzzy' - definition and the loss of it would be very
damaging to the right-of-way mapping projects in the UK at least. It saves a
lot of argument about subjective judgements of what tag best describes what
is on the ground. No objection adding an extra tag for signpost if that's
wanted - but it leaves ambiguities as to whether the signpost has any legal
implication or whether an unsigned path (many of them!) carries legal rights
of access.

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000000 at gmail.com] 
Sent: 13 August 2009 23:06
To: Nop
Cc: talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

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.