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

[Cartinus]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
> Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
> consistency within each country?

I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.

It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably the 
only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.

The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the middle (that 
separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have been done with 
highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something similar. That is analogous to how 
we treat e.g. a tertiary road with cycle lanes.

etc. etc. etc.

The path crowd however wanted "one solution for everything" and can't accept 
that people didn't want to redo all existing tagging. Especially not in 
places where it simply works.

The result is that some people use path as it is designed, some people don't 
use path at all and other people use path for what the translated word path 
means in their language (often some kind of unpaved footway).

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus