Hi all, (Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my head around them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, please point me at it)...
I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway, and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch describes "path" as "unofficial path" - making it sound like an unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass. Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios: 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too. Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them "highway=path, bicycle=yes" (to be safe). 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved, and connecting streets together. 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways. Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too. "highway=cycleway, foot=yes" seems the most satisfying, but according to the definition, it should just be a "path"? I tend to assume it's a cycleway if the gap between two entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or so... 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are lots of sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're normally blocked off, and used mainly by contractors before and after the grand prix. The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and cyclists. I had marked them "highway=unclassified" but now I think "highway=track surface=paved" would be better? 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. For example, a bike path passes close to the end of a cul-de-sac. There's no actual paved or dirt path, but a cyclist could easily cross a metre or two of grass (possibly dismounting). It seems crucial for routing to make connections here. So I've been adding "highway=path". Is there a better tag? 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough to give options like "how far are you willing to push the bike" or "are you willing to cut across grass?" etc. An example is at a university I used to ride through to get to work. I used to ride around the side of an oval, and cut down through some trees on an a true "unofficial path" - basically mountain biking. Do you mark it in as an unofficial walking path, and tag it with appropriate mountain biking paths, and assume the bike routing software is smart enough not to route city bikes that way? Maybe I'm looking for a distinction between "bicycle=no" and "bicycle=forbidden". 7) Big open concrete spaces that are eminently navigable by pedestrians and cyclists, but aren't exactly pedestrian malls. For example, big spaces in business parks, or around big public buildings. Mark them pedestrian anyway? Thanks all, Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
