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

[Mike Harris]

Not to suggest that there is a 'right' or a 'wrong' approach - but merely to
note that I (England mostly) - and I believe some others in England and
perhaps elsewhere) have a different approach - this is, I stress, what I
currently do - and has evolved as a result of my own (limited) experience in
mapping and participation in various group discussions:

1. All ways that are not available other than to pedestrians are
highway=footway - whether urban paved footways or rural unpaved 'footpaths'.
Even a rural 'footpath' that is barely discernible where it crosses, for
example, pasture, is highway=footway if it is a legal public footpath.

2. Highway=path is only used for a route - usually ill-defined and often in
upland areas where the precise legal line of a public footpath is often less
meaningful than the customary route (e.g. up a mountain) - in the sense that
people walk it.

3. Highway=track is used similarly for something that is wider and, at least
in principle, available for use by a four-wheeled (off-road e.g. a farm
tractor) vehicle.

3. I would then define legal status, where known, using a designated= tag
and surface condition using a combination of tracktype= and/or surface= as
appropriate. I would also add ref= where the reference number of the way was
known.

4. I would always add foot=yes (or at least foot=permissive) for clarity and
also add bicycle ¦ horse = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no as appropriate.

5. I would reserve highway=cycleway for something that was (a) built
primarily for use by bicycles - whether beside a motor road or not and was
(b) (only relevant in England and Wales) not a public
footpath/bridleway/byway (as these have legally defined rights for different
classes of user). I would then add foot=yes (unless pedestrians were
actually forbidden) for additional clarity and perhaps an indication as to
whether it was a shared way for cyclists and walkers or a longitudinally
divided dual use way.

6. I would use a route relation to define medium- / long-distance routes -
e.g. a long-distance path or a national/regional cycleway - adding names and
reference numbers to the relation.

Again, I stress, this is just what I do - in the interest of transparency -
and not in any way to suggest that it is better or worse than what Lesi or
anyone else has adopted. This is OSM - the ultimate popular democracy!

Have fun mapping!

Mike Harris
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lesi [mailto:lesi at lesi.is-a-geek.net] 
> Sent: 28 November 2009 14:29
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest 
> drawbacks of OSM.
> 
> Here's my approach:
> - A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which 
> was mostly built by an authority. You can walk on it safely 
> in high heels.
> - A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was 
> not built by somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways 
> in a forest which are to narrow to be tagged as tracks or 
> hiking trails in the mountains. If it's raining you could get 
> dirty shoes.
> You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes 
> with bicycle=yes/no.
> You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do 
> not use cycleway.
> 
> lesi
> 
> 
> 
>