> I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my > area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway, > and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch > describes "path" as "unofficial path" - making it sound like an > unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass.
highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1] Useful tags you can add to modify the above: * "access" tags such as foot or bicycle. (So highway=cycleway, foot=no would cover the rare case of a cycleway from which pedestrians are banned.) * designation=whatever - for the official status of a path. (For example, in the UK, you might have highway=bridleway, designation=restricted_byway.) * surface=tarmac | grass | dirt | gravel | whatever highway=path is an invention of the wikifiddlers and not needed in 99% of cases. The one case that isn't adequately covered by the above is what some people call "pathways of desire" - informal shortcuts that were never really laid out as a footpath. Like you say, an unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass. So: > 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were > probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too. highway=footway. You could add cycle=yes if bikes are permitted to use them; or upgrade to highway=cycleway if they have the width/surface etc. that characterises a cycleway. > 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved, > and connecting streets together. highway=cycleway. > 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways. > Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of > them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too. highway=cycleway. If there's a dotted line you could add segregated=yes. > 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are lots of > sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're normally blocked > off, and used mainly by contractors before and after the grand prix. > The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and cyclists. I had > marked them "highway=unclassified" but now I think "highway=track > surface=paved" would be better? Without knowing the exact place, probably something like: highway=service, access=private, bicycle=permissive, foot=permissive > 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. For > example, a bike path passes close to the end of a cul-de-sac. There's > no actual paved or dirt path, but a cyclist could easily cross a metre > or two of grass (possibly dismounting). It seems crucial for routing > to make connections here. So I've been adding "highway=path". Is there > a better tag? highway=path is well-suited for this. > 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people > wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of > responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the > OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough > to give options like "how far are you willing to push the bike" or > "are you willing to cut across grass?" etc. cyclestreets.net is an OSM-based routing site with an option for pushing your bike, so yes, there is. > 7) Big open concrete spaces that are eminently navigable by > pedestrians and cyclists, but aren't exactly pedestrian malls. I have no idea about landuse types so will leave this to others! All IMO, of course. I've cross-posted this to the tagging@ list which is better suited for this kind of discussion. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging