[OSM-talk] how to map this? cycleway or footpath?

[Roy Wallace]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM, James Livingston <doctau at mac.com> wrote:
>
> Most of the arguments I saw in the previous debate stemmed from two
> questions:
> * If a path can be used by both cyclists and pedestrians but has no
> signage (or has signage for both), should it be footway or cycleway?
> * What does *=designated actually mean?

Good summary James, thanks.

> I think the first question mostly was the cyclists wanting cycleway
> and the non-cyclists wanting footway. Both ways are perfectly valid,
> and I can't see either being picked without flipping a coin.

Yup. One of the benefits of using highway=path is that it avoids this situation.

> I won't talk about my opinion on the second, in the hope that we won't
> have another argument, look at the archives if you care. The big
> problem here is that the different groups have actively been using the
> alternative meanings, so we'd need to go back and edit a lot of data
> to make it consistent with whatever eventually gets chosen. Of course,
> not having a consistent meaning is worse than having to edit the data.

All true. I think it is necessary and useful to first document all of
these *existing* meanings on the wiki, and introduce more specific
tags (e.g. referring to signage/suitability/designation/legality) for
future clarification where necessary.

For those interested in contributing further, I think the latest
effort is at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path