On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some similar value)? > > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve, or cycleway > on a slope may be noticeably larger. > > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a pedestrian road, > with varied opinions. Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?
General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way according to community consensus. However, when it comes to the highway=* tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical classification, which is confusing. For example, a way intended for walking, running, cycling is highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified) (physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service, pedestrian, or something else. A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical classification). If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are data users/consumers supposed to figure this out? Mike
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
