I suspect it might be hard to come up with definitive criteria, but I
think you could come close.
I agree that there do tend to be some edge cases - typically:
1. Dirt/roughly paved paths in urban areas - I prefer "path" for these,
as they might be less suited to people with mobility issues
2. Paved tracks in national parks - I also prefer "path", as they tend
to connect up to the rest of the track system
I would be happy enough if footway just disappeared and we tagged all
paths with the relevant extra tagging (surface is probably the most
important). But that's probably going off topic...
cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
On 2/02/2022 11:59 am, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am contemplating a review of 'walking tracks' tagging in Tasmania,
outside of urban areas. In my case I am starting with tracks that are
exclusively for foot traffic. My investigation has led me to what appears to
be a conflict within OSM of what is the correct tagging to use.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath would suggest that
most could be a 'path' and this seems to be verified on existing data with
this styled overpass query (by bounding box)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fGX
* Blue represents a path
* Red represents a footway
* Black represents steps
The path tag also considers extra tagging such as the sac_scale, visibility,
surface, operator etc etc which is useful extra information. Sac_scale and
operator are certainly used less frequently on footway.
The footway tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway seems to have been
written with urban infrastructure in mind and as usual for OSM tagging does
not provide definitive detail (ie it could have said 'used exclusively by
pedestrians', instead it say mainly or exclusively).
Of course there are always cases on the margins of both and an example would
be a high use, possibly with disabled access, tracks such as Russell Falls
in Tasmania (to highlight one that is likely known by many)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fGZ
So that brings me to the recently created Australian Walking Track page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks which gives the
options to use both tags (path and footway) but without any real
qualification about choosing between the two. This still seems to be in
conflict with the Australian tagging guidelines on Bushwalking (and cycling
tracks)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bush_Walki
ng_and_Cycling_Tracks that definitively says 'Do not use highway=footway'.
So my question is - do you think we can come up with some criteria where a
footway ends and path commences or should we just go with the flow and stick
with OSM <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like> 'any tags
you like'? My main goal is to make sure the two Australian wikis are not in
conflict with each other.
I am aware there is some controversy re footway/pathway and bikes but I
would like to ignore that in this context
Cheers - Phil
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
