Hi, > I'm trying to get clear in my head the difference between footway and a > path.
there is no clear difference. > I would have thought that a footway would be a cut through between > residential streets, paved paths through parks, maybe designated paths > next to major roads - distinctly urban in nature. While a path would > tend to be a unpaved route (although not always) through fields and > moors and mountains - largely rural in nature. > > However, I've noticed that nearly all the paths out in the countryside > seem to be tagged as footways not paths. [...] Footway just is much older than path. That's why footway has been (and still is) used for all kind of trails. path has been suggested later, IIRC mainly for hiking and biking trails, but also for paths in the wood which are accessible by offroad cars or, well, snowmobiles :) . I was *very* glad as path occured, as it was much more appropriate for paths in the forest. Then some people suggested to use foot=designated, bike=designated or even both to replace foot- and cycleways completely. Expecially the latter one would have simplyfied the mapping of combined foot- and cycleways. But of course it was not doable to drop footway and cycleway completely. So what we have now is a bit of a mess. What gets mapped depends on personal preferences. I personally use footway for ways which are paved, dedicated to pedestrians and where you would walk in your evening dress even if it's raining. I use path for all the other ways, say a gravelled trail in a park. But that's my interpretation. -- Beste Grüße, Best regards, ce _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
