Yes = allowed or suitable?
About the second picture: as you say it's allowed to cycle there, so that tells me it should be bicycle=yes, and I would tag it myself as highway=cycleway. You can regularly see the kind of paths like that picture being used on mountainbike routes. Sure, not everyone will be able to get up there cycling, but since it's allowed and possible to cycle there, the tags need to reflect that...
- Could be, but since the access rights definitions weren't specific enough practices seem to be varying. I've clarified these some more. Which makes it clearer that a current cycleway and foot=yes/no aren't quite up to the task of classifying the variations in paths for pedestrians and cyclists even if the more detailed surface descriptions are left out. Bicycle=no implies that it's "not permitted or unsuitable". The value yes is only "has the legal right to use" but seems that definition doesn't guarantee physical passability and a totally unsuitable but legal to use way ought to have the value 'no' (or possibly both)?
Second point: I always thought highway=cycleway implied pedestrian access (and I'm quite sure I've read the same interpretation from others on wiki and/or mailing lists), unlike what you've written in the table... I guess no-one ever made work of explicit access rules for different tags, resulting in different opinions like that... --Eimai 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- At least all the pages I've found in the wiki state that allowed foot traffic on a cycleway calls for a foot=yes (At least Map_Features and Tag:highway=cycleway and that's about all beginners can be expected to read). I searched for this a lot when I came involved in mapping last fall and at that time it wasn't even clearly stated that designated combined cycle and footways ought to be under highway=cycleway. Alv 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Bei Track und Path ist die Verwendung in der Karte unabhängig von der rechtlichen Befahrbarkeit für verschiedene Verkehrsteilnehmer. Diese wird durch zusätzliche Attribute angegeben (access). --Markus 21:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- (To me) a track implies legal and physical usability for all or some (private) motorized modes of transport. highway=track + motorcar=no makes most of the time as much sense as a highway=footway + foot=no. Alv 07:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree for the most part, but in some cases it seems appropriate. e.g. when the motorcar=no is explicitly signed. --Hawke 17:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Reverting to "historic" state?
This page started as part of the documentation for the proposal that introduced the highway=path tag, under the name Proposed_features/Path/Examples. Unfortunately, it has since been moved and altered multiple times. I say unfortunately because it is still sorely needed in its original role, given the ongoing arguments involving the origins of the highway=path tag. So I see two options here: Revert this page to its historic state, or (if people think that the current state is useful in its own right) splitting the modern page off from the past version. --Tordanik 12:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, I want to show the state of the discussion at the time of the vote. If those examples weren't there back then, then they were not part of the proposal approve by the voters. Also, one big thing is that is missing from the current version is the "before" vs. "after" comparison. --Tordanik 15:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've now decided to restore the historic content at Proposed features/Path/Examples, keeping the current version of the documentation intact. --Tordanik 12:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
While there are examples of pedestrian paths, there is no explicit hiking trail / footpath. There is a significant different in marked hiking trails in the sense that these are mostly maintained and marked in maps. Since I'm mostly adding hiking trails, I would appreciate some guidance in this regard. Is Path or Footway more preferable for the paths that are intended for pedestrian hikes?