On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 17:15, Daniel Westergren <wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can > be a path. > > I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant > attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path... > In Sweden, 99% of all cycleways are open to pedestrians and there are few > footways where bicycles are forbidden. Thus, almost everything becomes a > path.... > > I was even recommended by one of the most experienced Swedish mappers to > use highway=footway for a natural forest path a couple of weeks ago... > Which turns the mess the other way, that what really should be a path > suddenly can be a footway and then we don't even know how to interpret > footways... unless other tags, like surface etc. are used, which in a lot > of cases they are not. > > For those combined urban foot- and cycleways, probably something like > highway=footcycleway should have been introduced instead, to reserve path > for the cases we're discussing here (which basically implies that it's not > necessarily accessible to everyone, even if smoothness, sac_scale, > mtb:scale etc. can be used to specify the difficulty/accessibility of the > path). > The way I see it is there are two main views of highway=footway,path in OSM. 1. Is that footway is urban and path is remote/forest 2. Is that footway is for primary walking paths (including remote/forest paths) and that path is for non-specified usage or mixed use paths (including urban paths). These are conflicting and it does seem that OSM has a mix of both styles.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
