Some thoughts from cyclist perspective. I personally not using the (highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated) combination for shared foot- and cycleways.
1) If I change a cycleway to path, I will unintentionally enable access for equestrians on the highway (according to this table: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Hungary ) So I need to add an additional 'horse=no' tag to highway=path 2) The iD Editor doesn't know the shared foot and cycleways, it only displays the highway as a classic 'path' category, just like a forest path. Result: some iD users begins to change highway=path back to highway=cycleway or highway=footway in urban environment. 3) As already mentioned by many, without the surface tag the highway=path could become meaningless. Some routing engine interprets highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated as an unpaved path, while interpreting highway=cycleway as a paved road (correctly) Result: some bicycle routers begins to avoid shared foot- and cycleways tagged with highway=path w/o surface. I know we are not mapping for the outputs, but the cycleways works nearly perfect while the path does not. Why do we change? So I need to add two additional tags for the same result without any advantages. highway=cycleway foot=designated segregated=yes highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated horse=no surface=asphalt Best regards, András
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
