Логотип OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap

footway vs. track

Опубліковано учасником jknewl 2 Вересня 2010, мова: English

Yesterday I added 9 changesets, most ways tagged with what Potlatch comes up with for "public footpaths", highway=footway, foot=yes. I added bicycle=yes and, where (mostly) appropriate, surface=paved. But I wonder if I had better be using highway=track for these 2-3m wide meandering asphalt pathways in parks?

Місце: Laurelhurst, Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, United States
Піктограма електронної пошти Піктограма Bluesky Піктограма Facebook Піктограма LinkedIn Піктограма Mastodon Піктограма Telegram Піктограма X

Обговорення

Коментар від Kevin Steinhardt, 2 Вересня 2010 в 16:24

Are cyclists welcome on the path/track?... or is it a case of "there's no ban on cycling"? If cyclists are welcome, I'd suggest highway=cycleway, surface=surfaced (or =tarmac), bicycle=yes, foot=yes, width=[whatever the width is], etc. If cyclists aren't *signed* as welcome, I'd suggest highway=track, surface=surfaced (or =tarmac), bicycle=unknown, foot=yes, width=[whatever].

Коментар від PhilippeP, 2 Вересня 2010 в 16:29

Track is an 'unpaved dirt way' see wiki for a picture ...

Коментар від richie0815, 3 Вересня 2010 в 06:37

If the way is wide enough and accessible for a vehicle you should use highway=track. Otherwise use path or cycleway or bridleway.

Увійти, аби залишити коментар