OpenStreetMap

footway vs. track

Posted by jknewl on 2 September 2010 in English (English)

Yesterday I added 9 changesets, most ways tagged with what Potlatch comes up with for "public footpaths", highway=footway, foot=yes. I added bicycle=yes and, where (mostly) appropriate, surface=paved. But I wonder if I had better be using highway=track for these 2-3m wide meandering asphalt pathways in parks?

Location: Belmont, Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, United States of America

Comment from Kevin Steinhardt on 2 September 2010 at 16:24

Are cyclists welcome on the path/track?... or is it a case of "there's no ban on cycling"? If cyclists are welcome, I'd suggest highway=cycleway, surface=surfaced (or =tarmac), bicycle=yes, foot=yes, width=[whatever the width is], etc. If cyclists aren't *signed* as welcome, I'd suggest highway=track, surface=surfaced (or =tarmac), bicycle=unknown, foot=yes, width=[whatever].

Hide this comment

Comment from PhilippeP on 2 September 2010 at 16:29

Track is an 'unpaved dirt way' see wiki for a picture ...

Hide this comment

Comment from richie0815 on 3 September 2010 at 06:37

If the way is wide enough and accessible for a vehicle you should use highway=track. Otherwise use path or cycleway or bridleway.

Hide this comment

Leave a comment

Parsed with Markdown

  • Headings

    # Heading
    ## Subheading

  • Unordered list

    * First item
    * Second item

  • Ordered list

    1. First item
    2. Second item

  • Link

    [Text](URL)
  • Image

    ![Alt text](URL)

Login to leave a comment