Incremental Refinement of highway=path

[Hungerburg (Asa Hundert)]

@Baloo_Uriza

Absent more specific tagging, that would be what a multiuse path is.

When I started mapping, I just looked at the data that I got presented with from within the editor (iD back then). A path for me appeared as the lowest thing in highway hierarchy. Indicating the fact, that the surrounding area passable here on foot. Only later I learned, that path means, I could ride a bicycle there or a horse. Funnily, back then, having read the wiki documentation, I always found multiuse would mean exactly what I understood that track would map, namely usable by multiple kinds of modes of transport, including tractors ;)

[Peter_Elderson]

@Tolstoi21

The list @Peter_Elderson came up with is a good start:

@Peter_Elderson

That is why I’d like a shortlist of typical path types which can be easily recognised. For me, I would start with e.g.

• Combined footway+cycleway, or paved multi-use path
• Walk-in-the-park
• ‘Bear trail’
• mountain trail

And there would be others as well. I say we vote for a set of such ways and see which ones actually gain traction

Which other path-archetypes and/or actual values for path=… would you suggest?

[Peter_Elderson]

@Duja

Indeed, that is the phenomenon that killed many sensible proposals, not just on OSM but in pretty much any community with a voting feature. Whenever a major problem is identified, people can’t select one among many possible solutions and as a result we’re eternally stuck with it.

An easy-to-use subdivision that doesn’t break anything probably has the best chance of gaining enough support. I feel that there is enough support for a ‘field trial’ to determine which values gain traction. If the path subtypes are clear enough, they add real information which - if an infinitely better solution emerges - could be converted. I also feel that there are enough data users who are eager to use the information for specialized maps.

[SimonPoole]

How does the “adding lots of badly delineated path sub values” proposal address the issue that was the motivation of @Hungerburg to start this thread?

[Tolstoi21]

@Peter_Elderson

Which other path-archetypes and/or actual values for path=… would you suggest?

I’m not sure I would have lots to add to that list, but in the previous path-related discussions issues have been raised at least for insufficiently/ambiguously signed pathways (so this would be distinct from clearly signed multi-use paths), paths signed but with traffic signs other than pedestrian/cycleway signs (this might be a Finnish specialty, traffic_sign=FI:C2), overgrown paths, paths that are partly so invisible that one cannot give them a sensible width tag, desire paths, paths marked only with trail marks. I’d have to revisit the very long discussions for more examples, but these are just from the top of my head and memory.

I hasten to add that most of these features could even today be expressed with other tags (overgrown, trail_visibility, traffic_sign, informal, etc.), but a pathtype tag could work alongside these.