Not to suggest that there is a 'right' or a 'wrong' approach - but merely to note that I (England mostly) - and I believe some others in England and perhaps elsewhere) have a different approach - this is, I stress, what I currently do - and has evolved as a result of my own (limited) experience in mapping and participation in various group discussions:
1. All ways that are not available other than to pedestrians are highway=footway - whether urban paved footways or rural unpaved 'footpaths'. Even a rural 'footpath' that is barely discernible where it crosses, for example, pasture, is highway=footway if it is a legal public footpath. 2. Highway=path is only used for a route - usually ill-defined and often in upland areas where the precise legal line of a public footpath is often less meaningful than the customary route (e.g. up a mountain) - in the sense that people walk it. 3. Highway=track is used similarly for something that is wider and, at least in principle, available for use by a four-wheeled (off-road e.g. a farm tractor) vehicle. 3. I would then define legal status, where known, using a designated= tag and surface condition using a combination of tracktype= and/or surface= as appropriate. I would also add ref= where the reference number of the way was known. 4. I would always add foot=yes (or at least foot=permissive) for clarity and also add bicycle ¦ horse = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no as appropriate. 5. I would reserve highway=cycleway for something that was (a) built primarily for use by bicycles - whether beside a motor road or not and was (b) (only relevant in England and Wales) not a public footpath/bridleway/byway (as these have legally defined rights for different classes of user). I would then add foot=yes (unless pedestrians were actually forbidden) for additional clarity and perhaps an indication as to whether it was a shared way for cyclists and walkers or a longitudinally divided dual use way. 6. I would use a route relation to define medium- / long-distance routes - e.g. a long-distance path or a national/regional cycleway - adding names and reference numbers to the relation. Again, I stress, this is just what I do - in the interest of transparency - and not in any way to suggest that it is better or worse than what Lesi or anyone else has adopted. This is OSM - the ultimate popular democracy! Have fun mapping! Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: Lesi [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 28 November 2009 14:29 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... > > The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest > drawbacks of OSM. > > Here's my approach: > - A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which > was mostly built by an authority. You can walk on it safely > in high heels. > - A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was > not built by somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways > in a forest which are to narrow to be tagged as tracks or > hiking trails in the mountains. If it's raining you could get > dirty shoes. > You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes > with bicycle=yes/no. > You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do > not use cycleway. > > lesi > > > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
