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. footpath doesn’t imply horses=no, it implies cars=no. to me path implies wheelchair=no. if they are wide, well maintained, somewhat smooth and hard, and easily passible, then they are footpaths. if it is a track for emergency access vehicles that is usually open for hiking, horses, and bikes, then label it is a track instead, cars=emergency or whatever that exact tag is. horses can fit on pathways and paths (and pedestrian, for that matter) - I don’t think the trails you are talking about are exclusive horse paths (a bridleway) so it would just have access for horses added to the path, like bicycle access on a footway vs a Cycleway where the intended purpose is bicycle access. Javbw > On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> 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. Any reason to leave them as "footways"? The > wiki suggests that "path" is more appropriate. It would be nice to > have consistent data, otherwise it suggests that one trail is > different from the next when if fact they are not. > > By the way, might this be an artifact of the defaults in Potlatch? > > Thanks, > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
