2014-11-30 2:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
> to me path implies wheelchair=no.
>>
>
> I don't know about that, path's generally the multimodal middle between
> footway (like a city sidewalk) and cycleway (which often implies foot=no;
> less commonly foot=yes, rarely foot=designated; I explicitly tag
Interesting! Those are huge cycle ways! Here in japan, they designate small
service roads normally blocked with bollards as cycle ways, as the distances
covered between the intersecting roads are very long (1-2km sometimes) and
sometimes more direct than the road system - but nothing more a path
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting interpretation of history. Slightly different version:
>
> The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
> highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM, johnw wrote:
> AFIK - footway and path are more toward the width, surface, smoothness,
> maintenance level, and expected use of the way. a sidewalk often gets
> tagged as footpath, as would be a concrete walkway in a garden.
>
> Paths are usually less maintained, l
Hi!
I consider footway to be exclusively for pedestrians.
If you apply the stricter german interpretation, then footway is for
pedestrians. Period.
If you apply the hierarchical english interpretation then footway is still
for pedestrians exclusively (while bicycle includes pedestrians and
bridl
Am 03.11.2014 um 23:38 schrieb Mike Thompson:
> I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first hand
> knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged
> "highway=footway" although most of them are open equally to foot
> traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them
Thanks for everyone's comments.
Based upon the information you have provided I believe these trails
best fit "highway=path" as long as the appropriate access tags are
added. I will also use "informal=yes" when appropriate as well as
indicate surface type and smoothness.
For those few cases where
2014-11-04 14:01 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes :
> Surely highway=bridleway has been around forever? It was certainly there
> when I started editing in 2007.
>
surely this was there, but the German sign for a bridleway excludes
pedestrians and bicycles and is rarely found in the real life, while ways
In Germany, highway=bridleway was interpreted as horses *only*. It's the
same issue as for bikes.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:28 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann
> > :
> > The path tag wa
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:28 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann
> :
> The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
> highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted
> something less mode-specific than high
Mike Thompson wrote:
> I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first
> hand knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been
> tagged "highway=footway" although most of them are open
> equally to foot traffic and horse traffic.
This is pretty much the canonical definition
On 11/4/14 5:33 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
A tag is not useless just because one particular renderer does not
evaluate it. There might be other renderer and data consumer that
are interested in this tag.
+1
we are not tagging for one specific renderer, we are tagging for the
potential suite of data
(hawke = snowmobile enthusiast, or at least that's the impression he gave,
for anyone coming late to this debate)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2014-11-04 11:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann <
>> richard.mann.westox
2014-11-04 11:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann >:
>
>> The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
>> highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
>> mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.
In a national park, I would prefer highway=footway for the built-up
and paved ways, e.g. close to the visitor centre, that are often
prepared for wheelchair=yes and attract people for a Sunday stroll.
Any longer, more natural paths for longer hiking I'd tag as
highway=path with tagging as Dan poin
2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann :
> The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
> highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
> mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.
>
the guy who proposed the tag path is a passionate hors
Interesting interpretation of history. Slightly different version:
The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.
In practice, this use is fairly limite
2014-11-03 23:38 GMT+01:00 Mike Thompson :
> Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged
> "highway=footway" although most of them are open equally to foot
> traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them as "footways"?
>
You can (IMHO) change them to path.
To give some historical back
One of the most important differences is that for highway=footway, we
know that pedestrians are allowed (unless other tags alter the access
explicitly). With highway=path we can't always assume that pedestrians
are allowed along it. I know there are routing systems that care about
this difference.
On 4/11/2014 10:30 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:14:11 +0900
From: johnw
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
Message-ID: <49514f61-bdf8-4b1b-84e8-0003db60f...@mac.com&
AFIK - footway and path are more toward the width, surface, smoothness,
maintenance level, and expected use of the way. a sidewalk often gets tagged as
footpath, as would be a concrete walkway in a garden.
Paths are usually less maintained, less even, narrower, and lower grade
surfaces.
foot
I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first hand
knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged
"highway=footway" although most of them are open equally to foot
traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them as "footways"? The
wiki suggests that "path" is more
22 matches
Mail list logo
