[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Nick Whitelegg]

>So a public footpath which the council has converted into a cycleway 
(part of a future cycle network if the council ever commit funds to 
complete >their decade old plan) which is segregated in some sections and 
unsegregated in others is possibly a footway with bicycle=permissive?
 
>I think I?ve currently got it tagged as a cycleway with 
designation=public_footpath (as the public footpath signs are still there, 
despite the >?upgrade?). 
 
>Bold formatting below added by me.
 
>Ed

Yes, I would say so, though I'm not sure of the law on council-designated 
cycleways. I would guess they aren't true public rights of way for 
cyclists, and the permission could be removed at any time without the same 
legal protection that true rights of way have.

In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive; 
and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment, using the 
generally-accepted definition of "footway" as "urban surfaced path" 
(though would prefer highway=path; surface=paved)

Nick