> Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?

No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly
cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes horses) are 3 to 4
meters wide, and occasionally even wider. Police sometimes drive cars on
these paths to access emergencies, and the bridges are strong enough for a
motor vehicle, but non-emergency vehicles are excluded and the paths are
clearly made for bikes and pedestrians.

> 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.

It is incorrect to use the different highway values for physical
classification; the differences are functional. Usually the form follows
the function. E.g. a highway=pedestrian is generally a whole street where
motor vehicles are excluded (though they might enter for emergencies or at
certain times for deliveries).

> 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

The length and surface do not have any bearing on the classification, in
theory. While it's true that highway=track is sometimes misused for unpaved
driveways, this is generally an example of mistagging for the renderer,
since many styles do not render unpaved service roads differently,
unfortunately. It's possible for private service roads to be several
kilometers in length, though this is much more common for industrial or
business-related service roads, rather than residential driveways.

– Joseph Eisenberg
Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to