Hi
Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an
explicit prohibition of bicycles.
But I could be wrong
Tony
Thanks folks,
OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the
?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing
strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs,
Hartz Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more
where there is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as
something like the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split
from path to footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.
I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so
it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.
I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.
Cheers - Phil
From: Andrew Harvey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
To: talk OSM Australian List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use
do not use <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>
highway= <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>
footway and the preference is
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> path, but
the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the
differentiation?
That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my
view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for
use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with
no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.
So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway
with this view.
An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and
remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that
view is outdated now.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Hi
I assumed that
highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not
allow bicycles
highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not
allow pedestrians
and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes
For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still
remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but
which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use
for.
At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data
consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
