Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single person wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for something that's unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the same thing to me.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:48, Andrew Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either >> way and be proven wrong. >> > > Up until May this year path meant an unsealed "track" that was too small > for vehicles (or at least that's how mappers were using them) now the > guidelines tell you to use them for all shared paths. I don't like this > because: > > 1. The whole path tagging concept is not universally admired: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy > 2. It makes Richard unhappy > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 > 3. Bare highway=path tags are meaningless > 4. Footway/bicycle=yes Cycleway/foot=yes tagging allows you > differentiate between shared paths that are old 1.25m wide footpaths and 3m > wide cycle paths. Switching to a path based tagging method throws this > information out [1]. > > By the way, there is no right and wrong in tagging; only more or less > useful > > > [1] width=* is only going to make Richard more unhappy. >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
