Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[johnw]

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard:
>> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
>>> I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
>>> will therefore break almost all applications which use OSM data. It
>>> conflicts with existing, heavily used tagging. 
>> 
>> quite the opposite. It won't break anything. It will be ignored for some
>> time untill data consumers learn about th new tag.
> 
> Every data user who does not support highway=footpath will loose all
> paths have highway=footpath because he expect them as highway=footway or
> highway=path. That's what I call backward-incompatible.
> 
> Every data user has to add highway=footpath to his style sheets,
> scripts, config files etc. Please read paragraph 8 to 10 of Andy Allan's
> posting at Github 1 1/2 years ago.
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913
> 

maybe =footpath is not appropriate, but in paragraph 10:

"So making tagging easy for them seems a priority, but is actually one step 
removed from the actual priority. The activity that we want to make easy is to 
map; that is, to represent features in our database.”

now, if this was an argument of footpath vs footway (the post is from 
sub_station vs substation) then I would be al for it. 

But =footway and =path mean different things in different regions, and as a 
noobie who showed up and started tagging, the extra baggage that =path appears 
to have was not visible. But it’s there. and its causing trouble. 


The point Andy’s making is that a change in the tagging scheme, espcially a new 
tag, makes everyone change all existing OSM renderers, etc - and that he 
doens’t want to see meaningless or minimally useful tag changes in (popular, 
rendered) tags. 


So is there a way to deal with the discrepancy of =footway, =path, and a lack 
of an explicit =trail option without a new =footway tag? yea. It means more 
strictly defining footway and path. which people don’t want to do either. 


so which change is least damaging? or do we let things drag on? the overlap and 
ambiguity of =path is very annoying. 

Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

[johnw]

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> Am 01.08.2015 um 14:29 schrieb John Willis > >:
>> 
>> I want to say that only disabled vehicles can gain access through a barrier 
>> or use a parking isle.
> 
> 
> access=no
> disabled=yes

 looked up the disabled=yes key, and I see this combo is the documented way to 
tag the disabled access. 

But it feels wrong tagging a “customers” dominated facility with access=no, 
even though customers can go there. 

I know it seems kind of a meaningless difference, but making a positive tag 
(like access=customers) via access=disabled seems to use access=no in a more 
consistent way.  none of these parking lots are access=no+customers=yes.


having a bit of service road in the middle of a mall render with the red dashed 
lines when it can be used by “customers” who are disabled seems a little wrong. 

I’ll follow the documented way, because I don’t want to tag for the renderer, 
but it seems weird. 

Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[johnw]

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> Every data user has to add highway=footpath to his style sheets,
> scripts, config files etc. Please read paragraph 8 to 10 of Andy Allan's
> posting at Github 1 1/2 years ago.
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913
> 

PS: 

Paragraph 5:

"Where existing tags are causing misinterpretation between mappers or 
mistranslations between communities, that's usually a cause for documentation, 
and occaisionally a cause for changing tags. landuse=farm was a great example, 
where using farmland and farmyard not only help english-speaking contributors, 
but also causes less confusion when translated.”

This is the issue with footway and path. "path" in OSM and “path" in some 
regions of the world mean entire separate things. and OSM's definition of path 
is quite wide.  It’s like having “highway=primary” and “highway=main”.

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Richard]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard:
> > On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
> >> I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
> >> will therefore break almost all applications which use OSM data. It
> >> conflicts with existing, heavily used tagging. 
> > 
> > quite the opposite. It won't break anything. It will be ignored for some
> > time untill data consumers learn about th new tag.
> 
> Every data user who does not support highway=footpath will loose all
> paths have highway=footpath because he expect them as highway=footway or
> highway=path. That's what I call backward-incompatible.

sure, but there are no such paths right now so nothing will be lost.
People who create them will have to live with it that they won't show up
on mapnik for some time or mabye never will. highway=via_ferrata isn't
rendered on mapnik, so what? Footpaths naturally aren't the main scope
of mapnik and there are several specialised hiking/outdoor maps which
are much better at this.

Redefining existing tags is what causes true breakage. In 2008 highway=path
was approved saying 
   "The default access restriction of highway=path is open 
to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed. "
Some years later, Feb 15 2015 the page was changed without vote and discussion 
to claim that : 
   "The default access restrictions of paths varies from country, see 
OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions"
- with the net result that all highway=path (s) previously mapped in Austria 
were retroactively changed to imply "bicycle=no" unless explicitly tagged 
otherwise.
  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dpath&diff=1141261&oldid=1118909

Changning default restrictions of well known and widely used tags is the 
way to hell.

Richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 05.08.2015 um 11:25 schrieb johnw :
> 
> The point Andy’s making is that a change in the tagging scheme, espcially a 
> new tag, makes everyone change all existing OSM renderers, etc - and that he 
> doens’t want to see meaningless or minimally useful tag changes in (popular, 
> rendered) tags. 


yes, unfortunately he's jumping on substation vs sub_station which was about  a 
substantial change in meaning and not just an orthographic correction.


cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 05.08.2015 um 11:25 schrieb johnw :
> 
> So is there a way to deal with the discrepancy of =footway, =path, and a lack 
> of an explicit =trail option without a new =footway tag? yea. It means more 
> strictly defining footway and path. which people don’t want to do either. 


path is not just (and not always) footway, it is also cycleway and bridleway 
and combined forms of these



> 
> 
> the overlap and ambiguity of =path is very annoying. 



I don't see an actual problem, besides people interpreting different meanings 
into the tag than what is actually documented. The "ambiguity" (or better 
universality) is intentional.


cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

[johnw]

Sorry it was a screw up. A "pocket dial” kind of thing. 

Javbw


> On Aug 4, 2015, at 3:57 AM, John Eldredge  wrote:
> 
> What is the point of quoting someone else without adding any additional 
> comment?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

[johnw]

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> Am 01.08.2015 um 14:29 schrieb John Willis :
>> 
>> I want to say that only disabled vehicles can gain access through a barrier 
>> or use a parking isle.
> 
> 
> access=no
> disabled=yes

 looked up the disabled=yes key, and I see this combo is the documented way to 
tag the disabled access. 

But it feels wrong tagging a “customers” dominated facility with access=no, 
even though customers can go there. 

I know it seems kind of a meaningless difference, but making a positive tag 
(like access=customers) via access=disabled seems to use access=no in a more 
consistent way.  none of these parking lots are access=no+customers=yes.


having a bit of service road in the middle of a mall render with the red dashed 
lines when it can be used by “customers” who are disabled seems a little wrong. 

I’ll follow the documented way, because I don’t want to tag for the renderer, 
but it seems weird. 

Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard :

>> Every data user who does not support highway=footpath will loose all
>> paths have highway=footpath because he expect them as highway=footway or
>> highway=path. That's what I call backward-incompatible.
> 
> sure, but there are no such paths right now so nothing will be lost.
> People who create them will have to live with it that they won't show up
> on mapnik for some time or mabye never will.


actually not only the people who create them will have to live with them 
vanishing from mapnik/carto, but everybody using this map. Retagging without 
rendering support isn't an option, you'd be called for vandalism (rightfully). 
A new key can always be introduced but a new value for a common key is normally 
problematic in all cases where some different consensus tagging is pre-existent.


> highway=via_ferrata isn't
> rendered on mapnik, so what?


not comparable


> 
> Redefining existing tags is what causes true breakage.


+1


> In 2008 highway=path
> was approved saying 
>   "The default access restriction of highway=path is open 
>to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed. "
> Some years later, Feb 15 2015 the page was changed without vote and 
> discussion 
> to claim that : 
>   "The default access restrictions of paths varies from country, see 
>OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions"


should be reverted. If I had my way we'd remove all conflicting country 
specific docu from the wiki in one go ;-)

cheers 

Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I don't see an actual problem, besides people interpreting different meanings 
> into the tag than what is actually documented. The "ambiguity" (or better 
> universality) is intentional.

If you don't have the remaining "hard defined" tags - trail is a good example - 
and have path overlap over 4 existing tags (foot, cycle, bridle, and track) 
*and* use a word that implies trail - then it is asking for trouble. 

Just like "highway=main" in my example. 

We need to have a logical separation of ways not meant for car travel - 
We have a wide range of roads, including track, which is used mainly for 
unpaved rough roads. 

I can use =pedestrian, but is not appropriate for sidewalks (in most cases). 

Urban and rural routes have marked and maintained trails that are impassible by 
city bike, old ladies, and wheelchairs. 

They are in a class by themselves. 

And those routes could be the only reason people come to a location (trailhead 
for wilderness preserve hiking) 

I can show the roads - easily defined. I can show the driveways for the 
trailhead - defined as well. Fire Road? Yep. But the path through the brush up 
the mountain - is that a footway or a path? It should never be associated with 
or rendered like a sidewalk.

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11094210143/

It's not a maintained, hard surfaced (usually asphalt/concrete) path easily 
used by everyone regardless of ability. 

Like these:

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11094010745/

Having the lower end of the non-car ways unaddressed is like having 
highway=service and highway=unclassified but no =track. 

There needs a better definition between footway and path - or more "hard" 
definitions of pedestrian ways need to be created - and the catch-all of path 
slowly whittled away. 

Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 05.08.2015 um 12:37 schrieb johnw :
> 
> having a bit of service road in the middle of a mall render with the red 
> dashed lines when it can be used by “customers” who are disabled seems a 
> little wrong. 


if the road is only accessible to disabled customers it seems ok to render it 
on the general map similar to a road not accessible at all. If the road is 
generally accessible but only disabled customers can park there, then we should 
omit the hatch on the road (i.e. tag accordingly).

FWIW, "access" tag and subtags are generally wrong on parking lots in this 
context, IMHO, what we normally want to say is that _parking_ is restricted. 
Access (e.g. walking there) is typically permissive on these sites. Anyway, 
it's documented like this.

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 05.08.2015 um 12:52 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> There needs a better definition between footway and path



actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and 
foot=designated


cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Richard Mann]

This isn't an argument that's ever likely to reach consensus.

Use of highway=path for unmade paths, usage rights vague is unobjectionable.
Use of highway=footway for made-up paths, default usage foot is
unobjectionable.

Other uses carry a degree of ambiguity.

All we can do is document the various uses, and suggest that people avoid
using tags in ways that are open to misinterpretation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[geow]

geow
dieterdreist wrote
> sent from a phone
> 
> Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard <

> ricoz.osm@

> >:
> 
>> In 2008 highway=path
>> was approved saying 
>>   "The default access restriction of highway=path is open 
>>to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed. "
>> Some years later, Feb 15 2015 the page was changed without vote and
>> discussion 
>> to claim that : 
>>   "The default access restrictions of paths varies from country, see 
>>OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions"
> 
> should be reverted. If I had my way we'd remove all conflicting country
> specific docu from the wiki in one go ;-)
> 
> cheers 
> Martin 

The essential path attribute "open to all non-motorized vehicles" is
untouched by my edit to the wiki and emergency vehicles are allowed anyway
and anywhere if applicable. But this is only the *general *access rule.
Actually from country to country this rule is *restricted or extended* for
other means of transportation. I'm well aware that Austria bans bicycles
from paths and even tracks (!) in forestry lands by default if not otherwise
permitted or signposted. In other parts of the world i.e. in Nepal
motorcycles are used and allowed on paths between mountain villages. Legal
access restrictions should always be tagged properly on the individual way.

Thanks,
geow




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851715.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Richard]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:20:50AM -0700, geow wrote:
> geow
> dieterdreist wrote
> > sent from a phone
> > 
> > Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard <
> 
> > ricoz.osm@
> 
> > >:
> > 
> >> In 2008 highway=path
> >> was approved saying 
> >>   "The default access restriction of highway=path is open 
> >>to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed. "
> >> Some years later, Feb 15 2015 the page was changed without vote and
> >> discussion 
> >> to claim that : 
> >>   "The default access restrictions of paths varies from country, see 
> >>OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions"
> > 
> > should be reverted. If I had my way we'd remove all conflicting country
> > specific docu from the wiki in one go ;-)
> > 
> > cheers 
> > Martin 
> 
> The essential path attribute "open to all non-motorized vehicles" is
> untouched by my edit to the wiki and emergency vehicles are allowed anyway
> and anywhere if applicable. 

the page you linked to says otherwise. The result is same as if you had 
written the wrong information yourself.

> Actually from country to country this rule is *restricted or extended* for
> other means of transportation. I'm well aware that Austria bans bicycles
> from paths and even tracks (!) in forestry lands by default if not otherwise
> permitted or signposted. In other parts of the world i.e. in Nepal
> motorcycles are used and allowed on paths between mountain villages. Legal
> access restrictions should always be tagged properly on the individual way.

there might be space for additional specifications that do not contradict
the approved proposal but not anything that contradicts 7 years of approved
tagging.
The bicycles are the problem here and the talkpage of 
"OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions"
list other problems.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 05.08.2015 um 15:20 schrieb geow :
> 
> Legal
> access restrictions should always be tagged properly on the individual way.


+1

cheers 
Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

[John Willis]

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, "access" tag and subtags are generally wrong on parking lots in this 
> context, IMHO, what we normally want to say is that _parking_ is restricted. 
> Access (e.g. walking there) is typically permissive on these sites. Anyway, 
> it's documented like this.


you’re right, waking there is allowed. but cars can be physically restricted by 
a gate. 

There is a trend at modern shopping malls here (huge outlet malls with 1000+ 
spaces) to have a separate handicapped parking lot directly in front of the 
location, surrounded by the highway=pedestrian expanse of the malls main 
walkway. The very short parking isle into this small lot sometimes has a gate 
on it opened by the security guard or possibly some official Japan issued 
remote. 

This is following the trend at Japanese service areas that have a "handicapped 
bay" parking at newly remodeled Service Areas on the motorway, completely 
separate from the main parking (same for motorcycles). This seems to be a new 
standard, as all of the service areas (I have visited) have had them added in 
the last couple years. 

Modern Service Area “Handicapped Bay"
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.84261,139.50442,3a,75y,188.69h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjjSOsbRR_lYB1jnQX0ChXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

separate mall parking with a gate (at the blue disabled turn from the main way, 
 barrier=lift_gate in the shadow) 
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1432557,139.5414653,22z/data=!3m1!1e3

separate mall parking without a gate
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7144488,140.2931003,21z/data=!3m1!1e3 


The last one I don’t have a picture of, but I have seen a lift gate for each 
individual space - each space has a lift gate blocking it, as the spaces in the 
parking structure are on the ground floor directly next to the mall entrance, 
so people abuse them. 

Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[johnw]

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and 
> foot=designated
> 


Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap? It 
reinforces my belief that that path’s definition is way, way too wide. 

Narrow Path to fill in the gaps rather than overlap, so at least new tagging 
doesn’t have this ambiguity.

We have to start cleaning up the mess somewhere. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 06.08.2015 um 00:32 schrieb johnw :

>> actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and 
>> foot=designated
> 
> 
> Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap?


because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway =cycleway

path with horse=designated is the same as highway =bridleway 

and you can also make combinations without having to decide for footway, 
cycleway or bridleway. Also, without any further access tags, path is neutral 
and open to all unmotorized means of transport (unlike footway, cycleway etc.)

cheers 
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

>> Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap?
>
> because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway =cycleway
>
> path with horse=designated is the same as highway =bridleway 
>
> and you can also make combinations without having to decide for
> footway, cycleway or bridleway. Also, without any further access tags,
> path is neutral and open to all unmotorized means of transport (unlike
> footway, cycleway etc.)

I agree with what Martin said.   I also agree with previous commenters
that redefining semantics of path or adding footpath would cause a lot
of problems.  A few problems and random comments.

  There's no clear default for path, footway or every cycleway about
  surface.  The obvious answer is that surface tags should be used.

  Similarly, a width tag should be used.  Or perhaps some tag that
  indicates a forest trail.   But this shoudl be extra, so that data
  consumers that don't know about it will still know that
  foot/bike/etc. traffic works.

  There is talk about access and emergency.  An emergency 4-wheel
  vehicle might or might not be allowed (and needs an explicit yes tag,
  as vehicle types default to no on all of these), but it will not
  physically fit.  If it did fit, the way should be tagged as a track.

  The default rendering is problematic in two ways; 

path is much heavier than footway/cycleway/bridleway, which are
similar except for color.A path is really just a way that is a
footway, cycleway and bridleway all at once, and thus is not a
larger or more significant way.  So the rendering should not have
more visual weight.  Arguably the colors could alternate among the
allowed ways, if there is no designated.  And of course bike renders
would just key off bicycle=yes, mostly.

A track marked as no access for regular cars and yes for foot should
probably render, in the default render, as something more like a
footway.  Or at least something less than track.   This is because
from the car viewpoint, it might be possible but it's not allowed.
From the foot viewpoint, it's just a wide path.

I believe that a lot of the footway/path angst would go away if path
stopped looking like a higher class of road.

  For all of these, some notion of hierarchy is needed.  For roads, we
  have primary/secondary/etc., which has its own issues.  For footways
  as an example, we have sidewalks that are not particularly interesting
  except at high zoom levels.  But a foot path that goes 3 km through a
  forest is interesting when you can see the whole forest, just like a
  through road.  This is not easily determinable automatically, because
  the 10 km through path that junctions with a sidewalk does not make
  the sidewalk important.  Importance is determined by the way being
  useful for a long hiking route.  So probably some sort of importance
  tag is needed.  One approach would be a tag distance=X, where X is a
  distance that one could reasonably travel where that way would be
  naturally a component.  Perhaps X should be rounded to 1/2/5 x 10^k m.
  I don't really like this suggestion, but I think we need something
  like it.
  


pgpxol0ci08rt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Greg Troxel]

geow  writes:

> I would like to propose an advanced definition of footway in order to have a
> classification criteria from "path".
>
> "highway=footway is used for pathways designated for pedestrians. The
> designation may be explicitly by a signpost, implicitly by law (like
> sidewalks if mapped as distinct ways) or obviously by structural design.
> Designated footpaths are primarily common in residential areas, but may also
> exist out-of-town (recreational environments, parklands etc.).

This is not unreasonable.  However, it has nothing to do with footway vs
path.  This rule applies equally to
  highway=footway
and
  highway=path foot=designated

which are defined to be the same.


pgpdvRwQ_Mkay.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[johnw]

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> and you can also make combinations without having to decide for footway, 
> cycleway or bridleway. Also, without any further access tags, path is neutral 
> and open to all unmotorized means of transport (unlike footway, cycleway etc.)



In a national park, where I have a trail through the wilderness, where foot and 
horse traffic is allowed, but not bikes - this makes perfect sense.
 These are the rules for the the trails in my state parks. mountain bikes (for 
recreation) are only allowed on fire roads (tracks). 


So… It is a path. Where horses and people are allowed. 


If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns, 
lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with 
foot access =yes

I would never consider tagging that as =path with foot & cycle =yes. I would 
consider a cycleway tagged as such mis-tagged and correct it. 

It plainly is not a path. it is a concrete walkway built to accommodate bicycle 
(commuter & daily life) traffic. It is built to a much higher grade than a 
path, and expectations of usage is very different.

If I have a sidewalk along a road, where it may be implicitly signed that bikes 
are allowed (like most of Japan), but it is built to footway specs (tons of 
poles, driveways, road crossings) - it is a =footway with bicycle=yes. The 
amount of ambiguous walkways based on their grade and construction for usage is 
very rare. And none of them could be confused with a 60cm wide dirt path 
through the forest.  

walking/biking to the mall and walking/biking through the wilderness have very 
different expectations of grade of the way. There are variances - but: 


Sidewalk  ≠ Path 

Motorway ≠ track 

we reflect that in the roadway tags. it should be equally obvious in the 
non-roadway tags as well. We don’t have a highway=main tag that could cover 
tracks to motorwayish roads, because that is bad ambiguous tagging! this issue 
with path exactly the same, IMO. 

Javbw. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging