On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, > calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly purpose built > for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode restrictions.
True enough. Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is the 'primary' use. And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling them with `highway=track`.) Martin Koppenhoefer: > this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas I > am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways regardless of > context (urban or not). I did that with combined foot/MTB trails near me, and consistently other mappers retagged them as `highway=footway bicycle=designated` for the unpaved ones and `highway=cycleway foot=designated` for the paved ones. When I saw that this was happening consistently, I decided to avoid `path`. (This was quite a long time ago. It may have been NE2's bot that did the retagging.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
