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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Mike Harris <mikh43 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see
> previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).

I was just proposing a compromise.  I don't care what the tags are so
long as they are well-defined.  highway=qwijibo (or
highway=invisible_path) is fine with me.

The wiki right now says that highway=path is to be used for paths,
which is incredibly unhelpful.  There are also some examples, which
suggest to me that a "path", as used by OSM, means essentially "any
highway (place open to the public where people travel) which doesn't
fall under another highway=* tag".

If I thought the wiki was a productive work environment, I'd try to
add that more specific definition there.  But I don't.

If that isn't the definition, then I propose "highway=highway", to
have that definition.  Personally, I don't see much sense
distinguishing between different types of "highway"s except in areas
where there is a formal legal designation.  Number of lanes should be
represented by lanes=*.  Maximum speed should be represented by
maxspeed=*.  Surfaces can be described with surface=*.  Access is
determined by access=*.  Importance can then be determined,
objectively, during a preprocessing stage which factors in all these
conditions along with the physical connections.  It should then be the
job of computers to combine all those elements together and decide
what colors to paint things.

I don't see that happening, so I'll just make my best guess as to
which highway=* tag to use, and not particularly worry about it
(except when someone tells me that I can't use *any* of the highway=*
tags for something which ought to be in the routing network).