On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets <shkvor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice. >> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber foot >> traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers >> bikes, `highway=path` for the rest. >> If you need to explicitly disallow bikes or foot you use access tags. > > This seems a little iffy. I mean, footway is obvious, is it designed for > people on foot, and too narrow for oncoming bikes to meet? Footway. City > sidewalk? Footway. A path through a park? Probably a path (especially if > it's multiuse), unless it's really narrow, then footway. Has lanes but isn't > a street? Cycleway.
Around Toronto I've generally seen (and also tagged myself), for routes through a park, footway if it's paved or otherwise major, path if it's unpaved or overgrown or status uncertain. So I interpret highway=footway to be "higher grade" than highway=path - the opposite of your interpretation, I fear... --Jarek _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
