highway=path can be a lot of things. I don’t see that as a problem. It seems like a lot of the troubles are due to users and routers assuming too much with highway=path. cycleway and footway are special cases of path.
My default interpretation:
highway=cycleway: Good enough for most riders on a skinny tire/road bike. Legal for foot also. Walkers should expect cyclists riding as fast as they can (either legal speed limited, or fitness limited).
highway=footway: Good enough for most walkers to walk. Assume bikes not allowed??
highway=path: Assume relatively unimproved surface, dirt or ground. One shouldn’t assume that you can take a stroller, or walk with a walker. One shouldn’t assume that you can practically ride a bike either. Assume legal for all nonmotorized users, but not necessarily practical.
I don’t think people should use routers to plan a hike or a bike ride but perhaps that’s just my cranky opinion.
Land managers who operate these trails generally do not differentiate between different types of bicycles, they are either allowed or not allowed. If someone has the ability to ride a gravel bike with no suspension on a mountain bike trail, more power to them. If you want to indicate that higher level equipment and skills are needed, use mtb:scale=*
In planning one should always consult multiple sources, including at least one that gives a narative description of the difficulty of the route. As previously noted, recent trip reports are also very helpful as conditions can change day to day in the mountains, especially during the spring and fall.
Agree. The solution here is to encourage mappers to use additional tags, and to encourage developers of routers to consume those tags. Once you know the physical nature of the trail in detail, it really is very little additional effort to add the tags. The effort is in doing the survey/research to determine the characteristics.
Some cyclists will always ride as fast as they can. The other 90% (mostly recreational) will choose a comfortable speed and adapt as they go. Even the e-bikes rarely use their max speed.
I personally see foot=yes as the default for most of the world, but the world wide access table sets it to foot=no.
Perhaps I should have been more precise: I had set bicycle=yes (the legal stuff) and mtb=designated (the legal+ stuff). That was conflated into bicycle=designated. Nowhere on the ground I had seen either “signs” reading cycleway nor “design” that might imply a cycleway. Only just signs reading mountain-bike trail.
What do I mean with legal+? The path proposal says: designated as intended for a particular use, as opposed to such use merely being allowed. They high-jacked access tagging for tagging of intent. Not being a native English speaker, designated as intended might mean something completely different than signs or design, perhaps reading minds? The proposal pictures display signs, where designation comes in.
You made my day! Unfortunately, people not only do that, they also trust the ETA given. I spent quite some time on issue trackers of at least one of the three routers linked from the openstreetmap website so they stop giving estimates en par with the world elite in mountain trail running. (Last overstatement, the world elite is a class in its own, but still, hard to beat by seasoned mountain hikers.)
I read this as “designated (i.e. intended for a particular use)”. Where the intention should be visible and verifiable, how else should someone on the road know it. Meaning preferably signage, or obvious construction (like kerbs and pavement of sidewalks) or painted logo on the surface.
In planning an adventure on trail, there are a number of questions:
Is the difficulty (including technical difficulty, as well as endurance) of the route something that I am able and willing to undertake at this time?
Does the route require navigation information beyond what can be provided by a highly accurate map?
If the answer to number 2 above is “yes”, then additional information is needed.
If OSM is combined with elevation data (a 5km trail at sea level that neither gains nor loses elevation is going to be a lot easier than the same trail at 3000 meters that gains and loses 1000 meters over its course), and if we use something like foot_scale (sac_scale may not be granular enough), and perhaps some other new tags some that have been mentioned, and if we micro map every trail (there is a big difference between an entire 5 km trail being smoothness=very_horrible and only 100m of it being smoothness=very_horrible and the rest of it being smoothness=intermediate), then we can probably answer #1 and #2, but I don’t think we can ever provide what is called for by #3 where it is required. We also have the problem that some tags, such as smoothness, may not impact all modes of transportation equally. For example, when walking, we can sometimes walk between large rocks, while a mountain biker would have to ride over them - but this isn’t always the case. Also, recording the day to day variations in trail conditions (e.g. snow, ice, water on the trail, whether rivers at a level that is fordable, etc.) is beyond the scope of OSM.
I also edited slightly Path controversy - OpenStreetMap Wiki to indicate that the discussion there is rather old (but still is controversial, just for slightly different reasons).
Nitpicking: In Germany, and in Austria and maybe other continental European countries too, a path is only equivalent to a footway, when attributed foot=designated. While in UK and also Australia, footway can represent what path is described as, no attributes needed.
My take-home of this topic: Not all the world is following German best practices, and that made me a bit more at ease: At least, when it is about what path is conceived of in diverse regions. Still I abhor renderings where anything path no matter the attributes is shown as if foot=designated, i.e. 2m wide and paved, i.e. a line with casing.
