Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 explicitly tag if it's unclear on footway, path, cycleway and motorway beyond the absolutely most broad assumptions; +1, it is worth to note that wheelchair is not part of the access tags. The other tags we are discussing in this thread are related to legal access, while wheelchair is about suitability. This said I agree that path does not have the implication of wheelchair no (as a dataconsumer who makes use of OSM data for routing of people in wheelchairs you might still assume that paths are not suitable for your users, but there is no such implication on the data level, e.g. the presence of a tag highway=path should not prevent you from adding wheelchair specific information). if they are wide, well maintained, somewhat smooth and hard, and easily passible, then they are footpaths. if it is a track for emergency access vehicles that is usually open for hiking, horses, and bikes, then label it is a track instead, cars=emergency or whatever that exact tag is cars=* isn't a tag. motor_vehicle would be... emergency is not a value though, it is a category by use: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access If you look at the definition, I'd actually read this as it is not necessary that there is an emergency, but it is necessary that the vehicle is of an emergency vehicle class (like police cars, ambulances, etc.). so actually there might be a problem: e.g. hov and hazmat and disabled are actually classes that are defined by use: access will not be forbidden to any truck that can transport hazardous material, but only to those that actually do right now. emergency by it's current definition doesn't fit into this scheme, it should rather go under motor_vehicle - double_tracked - emergency. What do you think? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 maintained, less even, narrower, and lower grade surfaces. footpath doesn’t imply horses=no, it implies cars=no. vehicle=no, actually. Bicycles are typically banned on sidewalks unless otherwise posted in most areas that are party to the Bern Conventions on traffic. 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 explicitly tag if it's unclear on footway, path, cycleway and motorway beyond the absolutely most broad assumptions; though it's safe to say anything that's a sidewalk mapped as a footway in downtown areas of pretty much anywhere in America is probably suspect if it says bicycle=yes without a source). if they are wide, well maintained, somewhat smooth and hard, and easily passible, then they are footpaths. if it is a track for emergency access vehicles that is usually open for hiking, horses, and bikes, then label it is a track instead, cars=emergency or whatever that exact tag is cars=* isn't a tag. motor_vehicle would be... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway. This is actually an important distinction, as cycleways generally adhere to the applicable highway standards for lane widths, markings and signage, which are usually absent on smaller and/or more multimodally oriented spaces. Compare a paved MUP looping your neighborhood park (which, odds are, is maybe 2-2.5m wide) compared to a cycleway with markings (which tends to be 2.5-3m wide, *per lane*). Consider it the nonmotorized infrastructure distinction between highway=unclassified and highway=tertiary (or higher, when you start throwing on values greater than one for both lanes:forward and lanes:backward for more than turn:lanes:* or start dealing with divided multilane cycleways). Personally I use highway=footway+bicycle=yes if it's low quality and legal for cycling, and highway=cycleway (which implies foot=yes in the UK) if it's halfway decent for cycling. And highway=path in field and forest. I'd avoid using highway=cycleway if it's not built primarily for a cyclist's benefit, readily identifiable with standard pavement markings and signage. Granted, this means there's some decent chunks of infrastructure that end up highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=designated that end up as major portions of a cycleway and/or hiking network. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 path with a painted line - sometimes only 1m per lane (as it is a converted service road. For as much as Japan loves bikes, they usually don't give a care about making anything remotely purpose built in high traffic areas to avoid accidents - bike lanes are woefully inadequate as well. Javbw On Nov 30, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: 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 mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway. This is actually an important distinction, as cycleways generally adhere to the applicable highway standards for lane widths, markings and signage, which are usually absent on smaller and/or more multimodally oriented spaces. Compare a paved MUP looping your neighborhood park (which, odds are, is maybe 2-2.5m wide) compared to a cycleway with markings (which tends to be 2.5-3m wide, per lane). Consider it the nonmotorized infrastructure distinction between highway=unclassified and highway=tertiary (or higher, when you start throwing on values greater than one for both lanes:forward and lanes:backward for more than turn:lanes:* or start dealing with divided multilane cycleways). Personally I use highway=footway+bicycle=yes if it's low quality and legal for cycling, and highway=cycleway (which implies foot=yes in the UK) if it's halfway decent for cycling. And highway=path in field and forest. I'd avoid using highway=cycleway if it's not built primarily for a cyclist's benefit, readily identifiable with standard pavement markings and signage. Granted, this means there's some decent chunks of infrastructure that end up highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=designated that end up as major portions of a cycleway and/or hiking network. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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. As others have said, the choice of which to use is very very fuzzy, but if you use highway=path please make sure to use some access tagging to say what kind of traffic may pass along it. Best Dan 2014-11-03 22:38 GMT+00:00 Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com: 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 footways? The wiki suggests that path is more appropriate. It would be nice to have consistent data, otherwise it suggests that one trail is different from the next when if fact they are not. By the way, might this be an artifact of the defaults in Potlatch? Thanks, Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 historical background: initially there were only footways, cycleways and bridleways in OSM, and the suggestion then was to use the tag for the higher/more important means of transport and eventually add additional ones (e.g. cycleway and foot=yes). Then it was argued that there is no preferred/higher/more important means of transport on a general purpose way for single tracked vehicles (nor is there on a shared cycle-pedestrian way), so highway=path was introduced, allowing all means of unmotorized transport equally by default and allowing to override the exclusion of motorized vehicles (e.g. snowmobiles, motorcycles). This new path tag was designed so generically that it was in theory able to replace the well introduced tags footway, cycleway and bridleway by adding additional access tags to the path (e.g. path and foot=designated equals footway). In practise people continued to use in these cases (way dedicated to one means of transport) the well introduced simple tags like footway, while they adopted path for ways that can be generically used or that allow more than one means of transport equally (something like highway=footway, bicycle=yes still has its place, e.g. for spots where pedestrians have the right of way but bicycles are allowed when driving carefully). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 limited: highway=path has been used far more for unmade paths in field and forest. The footway/cycleway issue largely continues to be dealt with by the meaning of cycleway being a bit country-specific; in some countries highway=cycleway (in cities, alongside roads) means probably-not-for-pedestrians, and in others it means probably-for-pedestrians-too-so-cycle-with-due-care. Personally I use highway=footway+bicycle=yes if it's low quality and legal for cycling, and highway=cycleway (which implies foot=yes in the UK) if it's halfway decent for cycling. And highway=path in field and forest. Richard On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 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 historical background: initially there were only footways, cycleways and bridleways in OSM, and the suggestion then was to use the tag for the higher/more important means of transport and eventually add additional ones (e.g. cycleway and foot=yes). Then it was argued that there is no preferred/higher/more important means of transport on a general purpose way for single tracked vehicles (nor is there on a shared cycle-pedestrian way), so highway=path was introduced, allowing all means of unmotorized transport equally by default and allowing to override the exclusion of motorized vehicles (e.g. snowmobiles, motorcycles). This new path tag was designed so generically that it was in theory able to replace the well introduced tags footway, cycleway and bridleway by adding additional access tags to the path (e.g. path and foot=designated equals footway). In practise people continued to use in these cases (way dedicated to one means of transport) the well introduced simple tags like footway, while they adopted path for ways that can be generically used or that allow more than one means of transport equally (something like highway=footway, bicycle=yes still has its place, e.g. for spots where pedestrians have the right of way but bicycles are allowed when driving carefully). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 tag path is a passionate horse rider and had mainly issues for riders in mind (basically all paths by that time were tagged either highway=cycleway or highway=footway, but most of them hadn't any horse tag attached --- despite the fact that many were accessible for horses --- because few mappers cared of even thought of horses). In practice, this use is fairly limited: highway=path has been used far more for unmade paths in field and forest. personally I am adding the tag informal=yes to paths that are not made on purpose but have emerged by using them. I'm careful to express statements about the dominant global use case for a tag with more than 3 million occurences, because I can only speak for the areas where I am mapping. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 pointed out below. Warin wrote on 2014-11-04 04:17: Bicycle access on a footway I depreciate as the rendering is the same, making the bicycle access tag useless. 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. I'm not aware of the rendering of bridal trails. highway=bridleway is rendered in the main map style, here is one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25798603 Dan S wrote on 2014-11-04 09:19: 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. As others have said, the choice of which to use is very very fuzzy, but if you use highway=path please make sure to use some access tagging to say what kind of traffic may pass along it. Best Dan 2014-11-03 22:38 GMT+00:00 Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com: 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 footways? The wiki suggests that path is more appropriate. It would be nice to have consistent data, otherwise it suggests that one trail is different from the next when if fact they are not. By the way, might this be an artifact of the defaults in Potlatch? Thanks, Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway. the guy who proposed the tag path is a passionate horse rider and had mainly issues for riders in mind (basically all paths by that time were tagged either highway=cycleway or highway=footway, but most of them hadn't any horse tag attached --- despite the fact that many were accessible for horses --- because few mappers cared of even thought of horses). sorry, even if this sounded logical, it might not be the true story ;-) (honestly thought this was it, but by looking up the wiki it seems that the tag has been proposed by 2 guys, CBM e hawke): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
(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 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 tag path is a passionate horse rider and had mainly issues for riders in mind (basically all paths by that time were tagged either highway=cycleway or highway=footway, but most of them hadn't any horse tag attached --- despite the fact that many were accessible for horses --- because few mappers cared of even thought of horses). sorry, even if this sounded logical, it might not be the true story ;-) (honestly thought this was it, but by looking up the wiki it seems that the tag has been proposed by 2 guys, CBM e hawke): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 data consumers which includes renderers, routers, and things things that haven't been thought of yet. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 highway=bridleway, at least here in the UK - a multi-user trail of limited maintenance quality, usually unsurfaced, where motor traffic is not permitted. That's what I'd suggest. If you do use highway=path, which I would recommend against, then absolutely: 1. add access tags, as per Dan's suggestion 2. add surface tags, as per http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 By the way, might this be an artifact of the defaults in Potlatch? No. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/path-vs-footway-tp5822937p5823020.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 less mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway. the guy who proposed the tag path is a passionate horse rider and had mainly issues for riders in mind (basically all paths by that time were tagged either highway=cycleway or highway=footway, but most of them hadn't any horse tag attached --- despite the fact that many were accessible for horses --- because few mappers cared of even thought of horses). Surely highway=bridleway has been around forever? It was certainly there when I started editing in 2007. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 life, while ways without any signs aren't that rare, but no-one in Germany would think of calling those bridleways cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 trails are paved, and/or wheelchair accessible by design, I will use footway. Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 footways? The wiki suggests that path is more appropriate. It would be nice to have consistent data, otherwise it suggests that one trail is different from the next when if fact they are not. I stopped using foot-, cycle- or bridleway and only use path with some access tags and surface. Width is another important tag. I do not find any differences except for access between *way and path and especially unpaved paved is not clear at all. At least in Germany there is a difference between footway + bicyle=yes (foot=designated), cycleway + foot=yes (bicycle designated) and path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated. So far I am not talking about foot/bicycle=official. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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 bridleway includes both pedestrians and bicycles). So path without any tags or with the intended access tags is the way to go. Unfortunately, path is used both for wide, well-made urban footways/cycleways (mostly with access tags) and for narrow nature trails (mostly with no additional tags). So you can tell who can access the trail but you still can't tell from highway=path which of the two it is. I think the best way to resolve the frequent mixups due to the dual meaning would be to re-introduce the highway=trail tag specifically for unmade trails and reserve path for its original meaning as multi-purppose way. bye, Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/path-vs-footway-tp5822937p5823082.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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. footpath doesn’t imply horses=no, it implies cars=no. to me path implies wheelchair=no. if they are wide, well maintained, somewhat smooth and hard, and easily passible, then they are footpaths. if it is a track for emergency access vehicles that is usually open for hiking, horses, and bikes, then label it is a track instead, cars=emergency or whatever that exact tag is. horses can fit on pathways and paths (and pedestrian, for that matter) - I don’t think the trails you are talking about are exclusive horse paths (a bridleway) so it would just have access for horses added to the path, like bicycle access on a footway vs a Cycleway where the intended purpose is bicycle access. Javbw On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com 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. Any reason to leave them as footways? The wiki suggests that path is more appropriate. It would be nice to have consistent data, otherwise it suggests that one trail is different from the next when if fact they are not. By the way, might this be an artifact of the defaults in Potlatch? Thanks, Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
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-84e8-0003db60f...@mac.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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. footpath doesn’t imply horses=no, it implies cars=no. to me path implies wheelchair=no. if they are wide, well maintained, somewhat smooth and hard, and easily passible, then they are footpaths. if it is a track for emergency access vehicles that is usually open for hiking, horses, and bikes, then label it is a track instead, cars=emergency or whatever that exact tag is. horses can fit on pathways and paths (and pedestrian, for that matter) - I don’t think the trails you are talking about are exclusive horse paths (a bridleway) so it would just have access for horses added to the path, like bicycle access on a footway vs a Cycleway where the intended purpose is bicycle access. Javbw I'm afraid the difference between footway and path are not well definded, overlap and can be tagged to be excatly the same. Thus your and my confusion! I take the view that footway generally is paved + urban, paths are generally unpaved + nonurban. If there is firm documented differences then they should be made evident by the reduction in avalible tags for each. For the moment at least you can chose what ever you like ... preferably the same as used near the area your are working on. I have seen both tags used on similar features in the same park by two different contributors, leading to confusion. So try to keep it the same. Good Luck. Bicycle access on a footway I depreciate as the rendering is the same, making the bicycle access tag useless. Thus I use highway=cycleway with pedestrian=yes as that alerts users to the bicyle aspect. I'm not aware of the rendering of bridal trails. But possibly these too could benifit from the same teartment. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
