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 > mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway. > This is actually an important distinction, as cycleways generally adhere to the applicable highway standards for lane widths, markings and signage, which are usually absent on smaller and/or more multimodally oriented spaces. Compare a paved MUP looping your neighborhood park (which, odds are, is maybe 2-2.5m wide) compared to a cycleway with markings (which tends to be 2.5-3m wide, *per lane*). Consider it the nonmotorized infrastructure distinction between highway=unclassified and highway=tertiary (or higher, when you start throwing on values greater than one for both lanes:forward and lanes:backward for more than turn:lanes:* or start dealing with divided multilane cycleways). Personally I use highway=footway+bicycle=yes if it's low quality and legal > for cycling, and highway=cycleway (which implies foot=yes in the UK) if > it's halfway decent for cycling. And highway=path in field and forest. > I'd avoid using highway=cycleway if it's not built primarily for a cyclist's benefit, readily identifiable with standard pavement markings and signage. Granted, this means there's some decent chunks of infrastructure that end up highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=designated that end up as major portions of a cycleway and/or hiking network.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
