Hello, That's crazy how much people get confused about the triplets path/footway/cycleway
highway=path for mixed path highway=footway for foot path highway=cycleway for cycle path Nothing to do with surface, localization, or whatever other properties, just there main usage. We should not map multiple feature in one tag. The wiki explain it well : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway highway footway : For designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for pedestrians. This includes walking tracks and gravel paths. If bicycles are allowed as well, you can indicate this by adding a bicycle=yes tag. Should not be used for paths where the primary or intended usage is unknown. [...] highway cycleway : For designated cycleways. Add foot=* only if default-access-restrictions do not apply highway path : A non-specific path. [...] Le mer. 27 mai 2020 à 14:00, Daniel Westergren <wes...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Would it be wrong to set sac_scale=hiking on an urban footway? I’m worried >> that we’ll get highway=path, foot=designated, cycle=designated, >> surface=paved, width=2.5, lit=yes, rubbish_bins_every=100m, >> sac_scale=hiking. >> > > Same with mtb:scale. > > A footway or cycleway should, in my opinion, never have sac_scale or > mtb:scale, unless we introduce explicit values like sac_scale=no and > mtb:scale=no. If it has sac_scale=hiking or above, or mtb:scale=0 or above > (remember, mtb:scale is based on the *Singletrail *Scale and even a value > of 0 should only be used for a singletrail), then it's not a footway or > cycleway, but a path. And if it has a sac_scale or mtb:scale value, then we > should already tell by that, that it's not accessible to everyone. > > And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because > then it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway. > > But again, with the current use of highway=path it can be and is used for > anything. That's why depend on subtags (trolltags) and that's what we need > to get away from. > > So yes, if we could separate footway, cycleway and path clearly from each > other, then we can know that a path is always (if it's used correctly) used > for unpaved paths that may not be accessible to people of all abilities. > > As for "hiking paths", it's also a word that confuses me. I think we're > here talking about the way (that has certain physical characteristics), not > the route, however people may use them (anyone can hike on a path, whether > it's part of a route or not). And if we can't organize paths hierarchically > like roads, then also context becomes irrelevant when separating footway > and cycleway from path. > > /Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Florimond Berthoux
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
