On 1/28/2020 4:49 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
Be that as it may, there are a great many `highway=path` objects
where the intent was `combined foot- and cycleway`. The concept that a
`footway` is urban while a `path` represents something more like a
wilderness trail is a rather new one to me. (I'm not saying that it's
new to the community. I may have been misinformed. Many other mappers
were similarly misinformed. Moreover, I've tagged some `footway`
objects that _are_ wilderness trails, as well as urban `path` objects,
and that, too, seems to match local practice.)
Given the large number of objects that are mistagged under the
understanding being proffered, it strikes me that the ship has sailed.
Since `surface=*` and `width=*` are available, they are likely to be
the only reliable way to disambiguate a paved footway from a dirt
hiking trail, or a paved doubletrack from a MTB trail.
My impression from this thread is that none of the three
(highway=footway, highway=cycleway, and highway=path) are deemed
inherently invalid for mapping a mixed bicycle/foot way. Some mappers
may have a heuristic for which to choose or avoid, but there doesn't
seem to be an official rule that holds worldwide. I'm sure a lot of it
is down to local mapping styles. And apparently the urban/rural thing is
a red herring, at least for mixed-use ways.
J
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
