Warin wrote: >highway=track is wider than highway=path, >tracks being useable for at least one 4WD, >So their width should be say 2 metres?
The first sentence is a common misstatement. Although track requires enough width for four wheeled vehicles, this does not mean "path" (or footway, or any other) could not be even wider. Even most "proper" cycleways are much wider. Tracks just can't be narrow. The original meanings were footway: "you can* and may walk here" - it looks and works like a way for pedestrians cycleway: "you can and may cycle and probably walk here" - it looks and works like a way for cyclists, or a combined cycle and pedestrian path * "can" for some common sense meaning of "does it look like it's a way", excluding say open areas of grass even if one may walk there (look up duck tagging in the wiki) for "path" all we know with absolute certainty is "here's something nonmotorized users may use, look at extra tags to be sure which, and if it's a built way or an informal trail in the woods." But we've learned to live with that. -- Alv _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
