Oh well, the yearly path discussion is here again. On Thu Greg Troxel wrote: > as vehicle types default to no on all of these), but it will not > physically fit. If it did fit, the way should be tagged as a track.
Most of the time "track" is not a relevant value: a track can not be too narrow that a two tracked motor vehicle can't get through, but even most cycleways are much wider than that. All of footway, path, cycleway, bridleway can be much wider than that. Track is a way primarily used for forestry or farming, with no or very little other usage, and legally open to those or all motor vehicles. > highway=footway and highway=path foot=designated > which are defined to be the same. The original discussion made the *one way* equivalence that if a way has path + foot=designated, consumers that didn't care about the extra details, could consider that tag combination equal to footway. Most sidewalks don't have any traffic signs, but they are footways, and most footways in parks don't have any signs designating them, but they still function as a footway and look like a footway, especially when the mapper compares them to the combined or segregated footway and cycleway nearby. This is to say that not all footways are equal to path+foot=designated, but in the other direction the implied equivalence holds. I'd say we have to live with the current practices, even if some ignored the arguments at the time the path proposal was discussed (that path is only needed when footway, cycleway or bridleway are misleading, and the value designated is _only then_ needed to tell consumers for whom the way is intended - that's usually given with a sign). I'd say the best suggestion is to encourage extra descriptive tags for some cases that could be mistaken because different countries have adopted varying practices; some prefer cycleway and footway over path (I do), others try to use path unless it's a "bicycles only" cycleway with a sign. The only real problem is that some use plain highway=path even for urban combined cycleways and footways, where others use the plain tag only for "not-built" forest trails that can be anything from a smooth meadow edge to a steep rocky hillside. AFAIK the other cases are just different tags for the same feature and condition, which is easy (even if means extra clauses while parsing), but without anything to go by those two can't be distinguished. I've tried to remember to always use informal=yes + surface=ground (or similar) + wheelchair=no for the forest paths, so that routers could give those a much higher cost (In general, the sac_scale or mtb:scale and what have we would likely have the same value for both). Adding surface=paved to any designated with a cycleway traffic sign (including combined/segregated) should be enough to verify that those paths are in fact equal to a "good" cycleway. I believe the following properties are uncontested, even if such ways for which these desriptions fit can appear in many different forms, with different signage or without any traffic signs at all: highway=footway: physically good for walking, and no bicycles unless tagged otherwise highway=cycleway: physically good for cycling and walking, cycling legal, walking allowed if in country defaults or tagged. highway=bridleway: horse riding allowed and the surface mostly suitable for that. country defaults apply to pedestrians and cyclists, or might be tagged. highway=path: unless otherwise tagged, walking, cycling and possibly riding is allowed. look at other tags (if they're present) to see if suitable for your mode of transport. -- alv _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
