OpenStreetMap
Dear OpenStreetMap,
I've been mapping paths on walks in the countryside. I've noticed that most already mapped paths seem to be pretty arbitrarily split between highway=path and highway=footway. So far I've been setting footway for "maintained/good quality" paths, and just path for smaller ones. Which is correct?
Discussion
Comment from JohnSmith on 30 May 2010 at 12:16
Hope you are wearing your flame resistant underwear...
Some people, notably in Europe outside the UK pushed to have highway=path replace highway=footway completely, but in the voting the bit where footway was made redundant wasn't accepted by the majority of voters, but this hasn't stopped some pushing the agenda anyway.
In general footway's are concrete paths in built up urban areas, paths are bush tracks.
Comment from whistle on 30 May 2010 at 12:20
Thanks and sorry for the double-post confusion ;-)
Comment from Tordanik on 30 May 2010 at 12:49
According to the original idea/proposal for path, there is no difference between a "highway=footway" and a "highway=path + foot=designated".
Path was defined to describe a more general category of highways: everything not intended for motor vehicles with four or more wheels, which covers all ways "below" highway=service and highway=track. According to this interpretation, footway, cycleway and bridleway are special cases of paths.
If none of the three more specific categories adequately describes the path, using highway=path is an obvious choice. Maybe the most common example for a path that doesn't fall into either of the footway/cycleway/bridleway categories are "bush tracks", but this doesn't mean that highway=path is synonymous with those. You therefore cannot reliably read any information about width, surface etc. from the highway=path tag itself.
In many situations, though, a path *can* be described by one of the more specific categories. Some choose to use highway=path plus additional tags (such as foot=designated) nevertheless, as a matter of personal preference. Back during the proposal vote, however, most mappers preferred to keep the established and convenient single-tag solutions for those common situations.
Comment from JohnSmith on 30 May 2010 at 13:07
@Tordanik footway describes a specific thing, a concrete foot path, it doesn't describe width or anything else any more than path does, which is why those other tags exist for, so if it isn't concrete use a surface=dirt tag etc etc etc.
Comment from Vclaw on 11 June 2010 at 16:07
In Scotland, it is legal to walk, cycle, ride a horse etc, just about anywhere (so long as you are responsible). See the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
The wiki definition of highway=footway says "For designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians".
As there are not many paths in the countryside exclusively for pedestrians, I think its usually best to use highway=path. Plus add the appropriate access tags, ie foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes.
And its also a good idea to tag the surface=, and for mountain paths / hiking trails, you can also tag with sac_scale= and mtb:scale= etc.
Comment from whistle on 12 June 2010 at 11:59
OK, these comments have convinced me that highway=path is the most appropriate for hiking paths, at least in Scotland. Thanks to everyone who responded to my query. I will update my edits to reflect that later, and for now I'm taking a forced break off OSM, due to rain having caused my GPS device to die.