2014-11-30 2:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org:
to me path implies wheelchair=no.
I don't know about that, path's generally the multimodal middle between
footway (like a city sidewalk) and cycleway (which often implies foot=no;
less commonly foot=yes, rarely foot=designated; I
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
AFIK - footway and path are more toward the width, surface, smoothness,
maintenance level, and expected use of the way. a sidewalk often gets
tagged as footpath, as would be a concrete walkway in a garden.
Paths are usually less
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting interpretation of history. Slightly different version:
The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
Interesting! Those are huge cycle ways! Here in japan, they designate small
service roads normally blocked with bollards as cycle ways, as the distances
covered between the intersecting roads are very long (1-2km sometimes) and
sometimes more direct than the road system - but nothing more a
One of the most important differences is that for highway=footway, we
know that pedestrians are allowed (unless other tags alter the access
explicitly). With highway=path we can't always assume that pedestrians
are allowed along it. I know there are routing systems that care about
this difference.
2014-11-03 23:38 GMT+01:00 Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com:
Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged
highway=footway although most of them are open equally to foot
traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them as footways?
You can (IMHO) change them to path.
To give some
Interesting interpretation of history. Slightly different version:
The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.
In practice, this use is fairly
2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.
the guy who proposed the
In a national park, I would prefer highway=footway for the built-up
and paved ways, e.g. close to the visitor centre, that are often
prepared for wheelchair=yes and attract people for a Sunday stroll.
Any longer, more natural paths for longer hiking I'd tag as
highway=path with tagging as Dan
2014-11-04 11:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
:
The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
(hawke = snowmobile enthusiast, or at least that's the impression he gave,
for anyone coming late to this debate)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-11-04 11:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2014-11-04 11:17
On 11/4/14 5:33 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
A tag is not useless just because one particular renderer does not
evaluate it. There might be other renderer and data consumer that
are interested in this tag.
+1
we are not tagging for one specific renderer, we are tagging for the
potential suite of
Mike Thompson wrote:
I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first
hand knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been
tagged highway=footway although most of them are open
equally to foot traffic and horse traffic.
This is pretty much the canonical definition of
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:28 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted
something
2014-11-04 14:01 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
Surely highway=bridleway has been around forever? It was certainly there
when I started editing in 2007.
surely this was there, but the German sign for a bridleway excludes
pedestrians and bicycles and is rarely found in the real
Thanks for everyone's comments.
Based upon the information you have provided I believe these trails
best fit highway=path as long as the appropriate access tags are
added. I will also use informal=yes when appropriate as well as
indicate surface type and smoothness.
For those few cases where the
Am 03.11.2014 um 23:38 schrieb Mike Thompson:
I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first hand
knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged
highway=footway although most of them are open equally to foot
traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them as
Hi!
I consider footway to be exclusively for pedestrians.
If you apply the stricter german interpretation, then footway is for
pedestrians. Period.
If you apply the hierarchical english interpretation then footway is still
for pedestrians exclusively (while bicycle includes pedestrians and
AFIK - footway and path are more toward the width, surface, smoothness,
maintenance level, and expected use of the way. a sidewalk often gets tagged as
footpath, as would be a concrete walkway in a garden.
Paths are usually less maintained, less even, narrower, and lower grade
surfaces.
On 4/11/2014 10:30 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:14:11 +0900
From: johnw jo...@mac.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
Message-ID: 49514f61-bdf8-4b1b-84e8
20 matches
Mail list logo
