On 18 October 2010 20:52, Mark Pulley <mrpul...@lizzy.com.au> wrote: > On the wiki, it suggests using highway=footway for urban footpaths and > highway=path for hiking trails. > > Which is best to use for asphalt footways in national parks (e.g. > wheelchair-friendly paths to lookouts) - should I use footway or path? >
My recollection of this is that highway=footway, highway=cycleway, and highway=bridleway have existed for far longer than the highway=path. I think some sections of the community were having difficulty knowing what was the difference between, say: highway=footway bicycle=designated horse=permissive and highway=cycleway foot=yes horse=permissive and highway=bridleway foot=yes bicycle=designated So, the idea was to just have highway=path, and then specify the use explicitly, so for a path designated as a cycleway, usable by pedestrians and horse use permitted, you might have.. highway=path bicycle=designated foot=yes horse=permissive My understanding is that there is no effective difference between highway=footway surface=paved and highway=path foot=yes surface=paved despite what the wiki says. Away from tagging for a second, personally, I'd be quite reticent to mark an asphalt national park track as wheelchair accessible, as not many of them maintained to a point of being independently accessible. Where is the path you are considering tagging? Ian.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
