Steve Bennett
2009-11-28 08:24:02 UTC
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
(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