[OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

Steve

This is a big topic that has been very extensively discussed in this group
(and elsewhere). There is quite a range of opinion and, perhaps inevitably,
to some extent the opinions reflect (a) whether mappers see themselves
primarily as walkers, cyclists or ... mappers! and (b) the geographical
location of the mapper. The UK (or at least England and Wales) has developed
a quite sophisticated system based around the local legislation on public
rights of way - but, given your reference to Albert Park, you will probably
want to stand this on its head (:>). There are quite a lot of tags to look
at:

Highway=
Surface=
Tracktype=
Foot ¦ Bicycle ¦ Motorcar = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no
Designated =

I won’t bore you with my own practice (and this will perhaps avoid starting
up once more one of the long discussions we've had) beyond saying that I
would recommend that you avoid the use of highway=path except for very
ill-defined and unofficial paths (in your own words "an unpaved line of
footprints carved through the grass") and give preference to highway=footway
¦ track ¦ cycleway.

Given the controversies over the relative rights and priorities for
different classes of user (e.g. foot ¦ bicycle ¦ horse) and the large
regional differences between what is or is not permitted on different
classes of way (ranging from "everyman's right to wander" as in Germany and
most Nordic countries) to the strictly legalistic "public rights of way"
system in England where there is only a legal right where this is recorded
and defined) I would suggest that useful general guidelines are:

- record what is there on the ground by observation of state or signage.
- do not tag to make the maps render nicely - the renderers will eventually
catch up with what mappers do.
- add legal rights where you are sure about them e.g. by using the
designation= tag.
- be as explicit as possible as to what class of user may be able to use the
way (whether in practice or by right) as this will help clarify where one
person might call something a 'footway' and another a 'cycleway' - something
like foot=yes, bicycle=permissive is at least fairly explicit.

Before I get flamed - these are only my ideas and others may well differ -
but I've tried to keep it general as to practice and geography ...

Give my regards to Melbourne!

Mike Harris
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevagewp at gmail.com] 
> Sent: 28 November 2009 08:24
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> Hi all,
>   (Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my 
> head around them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, 
> please point me at it)...
> 
> I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths 
> around my area, and am having trouble deciding when to use 
> path, when footway, and when cycleway. I'm particularly 
> troubled by the way Potlatch describes "path" as "unofficial 
> path" - making it sound like an unpaved line of footprints 
> carved through the grass.
> 
> Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios:
> 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I 
> guess were probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists 
> use them too.
> Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them 
> "highway=path, bicycle=yes" (to be safe).
> 
> 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually 
> paved, and connecting streets together.
> 
> 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways.
> Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people 
> think of them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too.
> "highway=cycleway, foot=yes" seems the most satisfying, but 
> according to the definition, it should just be a "path"? I 
> tend to assume it's a cycleway if the gap between two 
> entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or so...
> 
> 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are 
> lots of sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're 
> normally blocked off, and used mainly by contractors before 
> and after the grand prix.
> The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and 
> cyclists. I had marked them "highway=unclassified" but now I 
> think "highway=track surface=paved" would be better?
> 
> 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. 
> For example, a bike path passes close to the end of a 
> cul-de-sac. There's no actual paved or dirt path, but a 
> cyclist could easily cross a metre or two of grass (possibly 
> dismounting). It seems crucial for routing to make 
> connections here. So I've been adding "highway=path". Is 
> there a better tag?
> 
> 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most 
> people wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the 
> division of responsibility for correctly handling bike 
> routing lies, between the OSM data, and the routing software. 
> Is there any software smart enough to give options like "how 
> far are you willing to push the bike" or "are you willing to 
> cut across grass?" etc. An example is at a university I used 
> to ride through to get to work. I used to ride around the 
> side of an oval, and cut down through some trees on an a true 
> "unofficial path" - basically mountain biking. Do you mark it 
> in as an unofficial walking path, and tag it with appropriate 
> mountain biking paths, and assume the bike routing software 
> is smart enough not to route city bikes that way?
> 
> Maybe I'm looking for a distinction between "bicycle=no" and 
> "bicycle=forbidden".
> 
> 7) Big open concrete spaces that are eminently navigable by 
> pedestrians and cyclists, but aren't exactly pedestrian 
> malls. For example, big spaces in business parks, or around 
> big public buildings.
> Mark them pedestrian anyway?
> 
> Thanks all,
> Steve
> 
> 
>