Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path, 10% footway.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as > vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') > > Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe > try > it o your local parks > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus > > Cheers - Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM > To: Phil Wyatt <[email protected]> > Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' <[email protected]>; 'talk OSM Australian List' > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths > > 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
