Hmm, this is about changes to the “path” article. You are right, I did not realize that the text reference the images. I was just out to have the page show the wide range of what path in OSM represents.
Even though the Hexenstiege picture is shown twice, I will put it back in.
I replaced the picture for a different one tha conveys the same thing (a much smooter path then the onewith roots) without repeating itself. Also simplified the wording a bit and moved the note into the table as suggested above.
@supsup: Thanks for your try to clean up the misuse of highway=path, especially in Germany.
Yes, there is a massive misuse of this tag in Germany, so some people maybe cry now. I always used highway=path only for small unpaved ways e.g. with surface=ground, and never (maybe as beginner) for highway=footwayfor the very few ways it mapped.
The fact, that the German wiki page long times makes the impression (for the short description until now), that highway=footway have to be official signposted makes this issue not better.
This is one of the tags which were later reused for other things, so I am not afraid that someone tries to clean this up now. As there is a better alternatives e.g. highway=footway.
This is no misuse. This is conform with the definition of highway=path.
I think
Also note that many mappers consider {{Tag|highway|footway}}/{{Tag|highway|cycleway}} + access tags as necessary more appropriate for well constructed ”urban style” ways like the one depicted on the first picture.
should not have been deleted. Any strong reason why you deleted that?
Isn’t that already in top of article? That is where I think it belongs. Ahh, I see, you moved it below the fold. Shall I put it back up again, above the fold? There is considerable force behind that, so I learned from reading along here.
UPDATE: Nah, it is still there, above the fold. Redundancy certainly helps people get the idea, sometimes though its just a distraction, I’d say, just look at the CyclOSM rendering – if that is even true? I cannot find at the moment a path with just bicycle=yes and nothing more to confirm!
PS: You removed
By itself, as a bare {{Tag|highway|path}} it conveys close to no information of the properties of the mapped feature: Mostly, it just states, the surrounding area can be passed there, by one or more indeterminate means. All the essence is in the attributes.
I was quite fond of that formula, see my blog post, one commenter likened path to slice.(0) on Key:highway. I think it essential when talking about highway=path, that it is just the same as highway=road minus cars.
Regarding the removed note - ok, the article is too long anyway. It could use trimming. The pictures at right bottom corner could probably be moved to the examples and " Considerations for data consumers" and “disputed usage” could be conflated into one. And I am not sure all the section about access is necessary in that extent.
I think it is kind of convoluted, or hard to parse. What about:
Without additional tags, highway=path conveys little information: it is a way that people use to move around, possibly in a small vehicle or using an animal, but not in a car. All further information is in additional tags.
?
Be my guest, anything that explains in prose the meaning of “generic” – Obviously, I failed at that.
It’s an improvement, but let’s hold off until we see the results of this survey. It aims to define what ‘pathways of unknown classification’ really are and figure out the best way for mappers, routers, and renderers to handle them.