I’m not planning to redefine highway=path, but would like to move things that aren’t actually paths (for example scrambles, climbing-related ways, “pathless” paths in general) to their own tags. To me, they should’ve never been tagged as path anyway. So that what remains, I would then sub-tag with path=* 
6 Likes
I think we have something in common – I also see paths everywhere when out rambling.
The originator of the video called it a route. Only somebody familiar with the area can tell if he or she followed what is mapped as a path there in openstreetmap.
Can you provide some examples of what you see as potential values for sub-tag path=* ?
I haven’t come to a long list yet, because I find it really hard to think of categories. The things that I would really like to see in these categories are:
shared-usepaths (pedestrians + bicycles only)mtbpathsconnectingpaths[1]recreationalpaths (everything up to sac_scale T1, but not higher)
All the other path types people have mentioned, like motorcycleway, I don’t know enough about to classify them at all. That’s why I think some brainstorming group to get this started would be a good thing. Also, I’m a coder, I spend 90% of my time thinking about the name of a function or variable, and only 10% actually writing code. I’m terrible at this.
And by this, I mean any path meant for getting from A to B, much like unclassified vs residential roads. These have to be in a condition that allows travel in a speed similar to a road of that country ↩︎
3 Likes
Mountain bike trails really shouldn’t use the same primary tag as regular (shared) cycleways. This is pretty much the same case as scrambles, just for cyclists. Breaking backwards compatibility is a feature here.
9 Likes
This is a very good observation. The OSM schema is a bit car-centric, and there’s significant opposition (for whatever reason) to treating anything pedestrian- or cycle-related in the same manner.
It’d be nice if we could create a good tag for combined footway/cycleway, since this concept exists around the world.
3 Likes
I would think that this depends. A lot of easier MTB trails I know share ways with hiking trails. But it’s a gray area.
3 Likes
In my jurisdiction, these shared paths are cycling infrastructure. That corresponds well with the common practice of using cycle for the highway tag.
I had read that as MTB downhill trails that are single-track single-use.
This will get even more pronounced in my area, as tourism agencies are in need of more summer entertainment and exactly this kind of shared-use is coming up in talks right now. Opening all forestry tracks for MTB though is no longer actively pushed by any major player.
2 Likes
I see that under cycling and rules for cyclists, it’s considered one of many types of cycling infrastructure, which of course it is, but does that mean it’s regarded as being primarily cycling infrastructure? If so, that’s very interesting.
I can imagine a definition of types of pedestrian infrastructure would include pavements, footways, pedestrian crossings, etc., and could also potentially include foot- and cycleways. I couldn’t find any definition at all for pedestrian infrastructure in Austria.
Also, the NO tagging schema says to use highway=cycleway + foot=designated for foot- and cycleways. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it does place foot- and cycleways in the cycleway hierarchy. In NO, there’s no grounds to place it there, and some are arguing that recent court verdicts must be interpreted such that foot- and cycleways legally must be treated as footways…
The classification is literally from the legal code. On the shared spaces, cyclists have to yield to pedestrians though (they must not endanger them.) Mind you, cyclestreets are not cycling-infrastructure here 
I doubt that shared spaces for hiking and mountainbiking will ever become cycling infrastructure. Will openstreetmap need two shared-path-tags?
That is my personal take on this. I mapped some such way (no segregation) even like that. It got corrected the next day.
I’m not quite sure if I would put it that way. Cyclists and pedestrians are treated equally in the definition.
11a.
Geh- und Radweg: ein für den Fußgänger- und Fahrradverkehr bestimmter und als solcher gekennzeichneter Weg;
“Foot- and cycleway: a way designated and marked for use by foot and cycle traffic.”
They are both pedestrian and cycle infrastructure at the same time.
That doesn’t make highway=cycleway + foot=designated any less valid though. This tagging combination is used more often than highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated in Austria.
highway=cycleway + foot=designated: 12559
highway=footway + bicycle=designated: 1060
highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated: 9817
I’ve used highway=footway + bicycle=designated before when the ‘cycleway’ was nothing more than a blue bicycle sign on a normal sidewalk without any real improvements for cyclists. It was clear that the reason it was put there was mostly just for the benefit of drivers on the road so they wouldn’t be ‘bothered’ by the cyclists.
Off-topic to German-themed side-topic: depending on the situation, but a lot of people are afraid to share space with cars so are quite happy for a legalized sidewalk. I usually share the way with cars wanting to be faster but I question my life-choices a lot when somebody overtakes me with a side distance of 20 centimeters (the world would be a much better place if world was motorcar=no :-D).
On topic I think your tagging makes a lot of sense to differentiate purpose-build cyclke-infrastructure and pure legalization.
Regarding ambiguity - one of the ambiguities I observe, when is it a path and when is it a footway. I observed that on OSM when a local mapper retagged a footway as a path and made corresponding changeset comments. I observed that on this forum here, when people make the difference depend on the height or the form of the kerbs between a carriageway and a pavement.