On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote:
> 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... > Not higher grade, just not as specialized in its design purpose and what other use modes will not find their needs particularly addressed if it's allowed at all. In a venn diagram of bridleway, cycleway and footway, path is in the middle.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
