highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
124 messages Options
1234 ... 7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

geow
I would like to propose an advanced definition of footway in order to have a classification criteria from "path".

"highway=footway is used for pathways designated for pedestrians. The designation may be explicitly by a signpost, implicitly by law (like sidewalks if mapped as distinct ways) or obviously by structural design. Designated footpaths are primarily common in residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town (recreational environments, parklands etc.).

Rationale:

The current definition ("minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians") is not specific in providing definite distinctive features between footway and path. The consequences are misconceptions and globally inconsistent assumptions in selecting the right type.

geow


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Daniel Koć
W dniu 02.08.2015 21:26, geow napisał(a):
> I would like to propose an advanced definition of footway in order to
> have a
> classification criteria from "path".

It would be very useful to have more clear definitions for example to
help understand how we should display it on default map style - there's
ongoing discussion about it right now:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698

--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
down" [A. Cohen]

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Richard Z.
In reply to this post by geow
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:26:24PM -0700, geow wrote:
> I would like to propose an advanced definition of footway in order to have a
> classification criteria from "path".
>
> "highway=footway is used for pathways designated for pedestrians. The
> designation may be explicitly by a signpost, implicitly by law (like
> sidewalks if mapped as distinct ways) or obviously by structural design.
> Designated footpaths are primarily common in residential areas, but may also
> exist out-of-town (recreational environments, parklands etc.).

so highway=footway or designated footpaths ?

> Rationale:
>
> The current definition ("minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively
> by pedestrians") is not specific in providing definite distinctive features
> between footway and path. The consequences are misconceptions and globally
> inconsistent assumptions in selecting the right type.

Another rationale: there is a mess and we need a fresh start with strictly
defined set of properties which will not be changed again without vote as
happened with highway=path.

Enhancing highway=footway won't help much as you can not change preexisting
use by a new proposal.
I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a variant
of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles unless
otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.

Richard

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Michael Reichert
Hi Richard,

Am 2015-08-02 um 23:25 schrieb Richard:

>> Rationale:
>>
>> The current definition ("minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively
>> by pedestrians") is not specific in providing definite distinctive features
>> between footway and path. The consequences are misconceptions and globally
>> inconsistent assumptions in selecting the right type.
>
> Another rationale: there is a mess and we need a fresh start with strictly
> defined set of properties which will not be changed again without vote as
> happened with highway=path.
>
> Enhancing highway=footway won't help much as you can not change preexisting
> use by a new proposal.
I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
will therefore break almost all applications which use OSM data. It
conflicts with existing, heavily used tagging. Why don't you just say:

highway=path and highway=footway area equal tags. You can freely choose.
You need additional (to be defined) for a more detailed specification.

Best regards

Michael



Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

geow
In reply to this post by Richard Z.
Richard Z. wrote
...
I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a variant
of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles unless
otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
...
@Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5 or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?

Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"  along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway keys.

The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.

geow




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Ilpo Järvinen
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:

> Richard Z. wrote
> > ...
> > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
> > variant
> > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
> > unless
> > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
> > ...
>
> @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5
> or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
> along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
> properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
> keys.
>
> The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and
> assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.

Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could
go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the
same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).

I personally would prefer that something would really be defined into
highway=* for real paths that are not "constructed" (and that it would
also render with default mapnik as otherwise the feedback satisfaction
factor won't be there and it won't fly against highway=path mess that "at
least renders"). That would probably make the issue slightly less
convoluted eventually (and might allow easier migration between footway
and path or even defining eventually footway == path as someone
suggested). ...Sadly the highway=trail discussion lead to nowhere on this
front [1]. There's informal=yes (and perhaps wheelchair=no too) but that's
2-3 keys with no really good reason, IMHO.

However, I'm painfully aware that also all these discussions are unlikely
lead nowhere as highway=path only supporters seem to be unwilling to allow
such differentiation (which, according to their claims is exactly same
class as highway=path and therefore it would be trivial to match them in
the data user end). I also don't believe that it would be that hard to use
correctly in practice although some likely would try to claim that such
highway class woule be very subjective.


--
 i.

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-October/005417.html

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Warin
On 3/08/2015 8:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
>
>> Richard Z. wrote
>>> ...
>>> I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
>>> variant
>>> of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
>>> unless
>>> otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
>>> ...
>> @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5
>> or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
>> along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
>> properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
>> keys.
>>
>> The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and
>> assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.
> Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
> of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could
> go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the
> same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).

And that leads to the mess 'we' have.
Taking this to an extreme there would be some 6(access)*6(surface)*6(set widths) of highway=path/footway (216 types)
each with an individual tag
just so some mappers would not be put to the trouble of entering the data!

Oh .. and I have left off the cycleway/bridle way too so add another 3!

Personally I am for the amalgamation of highway=path/footway.
Not using the sub tag for detail ... is like using shop=yes ... you simply mark the presence of something and leave the detail for someone who cares.
Most who don't use the sub tags are probably not correctly suing path/footway either.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Ilpo Järvinen


sent from a phone

> Am 03.08.2015 um 00:58 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen <[hidden email]>:
>
> Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
> of increased effort that slows down useful mapping


it doesn't matter with presets as they can set several tags at the same time, but I'd generally reject this argument as not relevant. Surveying a way takes a lot of time, drawing the geometry as well, opposed to this, very few seconds to add an additional tag (with autocompletion it is sth like 1-2 secs per tag) are really completely insignificant.

cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Richard Mann-2
What we have is a mess. Most data consumers will simplify it to meet their needs. 

About the only useful high-level distinction is between well-made paths, typically in an urban environment, which clearly have been built with the intention that they be used by someone, and poorly-made paths (mostly in the countryside, but some in marginal land in urban environments), where the intention is unclear or absent. 

If people want to add further tags (foot=designated+bicycle=designated+segregated=yes or whatever) then feel free: some specialised data users might use such detail (and indeed, with all those tags, the specialised data user is unlikely to read too much into the actual value of the highway tag). 

So lets at least have a clear difference between a plain highway=footway and a plain highway=path. And leave the fine distinctions about who is supposed to use them (if known) to further tags.

highway=path should be a rough path
highway=footway should be a made-up path with limited room for non-foot traffic (eg bicycles), or an explicit ban
highway=cycleway should be a made-up path with good room for bicycles (given other usage)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Am 03.08.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Richard Mann <[hidden email]>:
>
> So lets at least have a clear difference between a plain highway=footway and a plain highway=path


there is, a path is generic while a footway is for pedestrians


cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Richard Mann-2
No, that isn't a difference. If path is generic then footway is a subset of path. 

It's this idea, that we need a vague generic basket for smaller highways that has created all this confusion. It amounts to saying: put in a vague tag and then add others to clarify. That isn't how people use tags in practice: all tags develop a semantic meaning, the only question is whether anybody understands what that meaning is!

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


sent from a phone

> Am 03.08.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Richard Mann <[hidden email]>:
>
> So lets at least have a clear difference between a plain highway=footway and a plain highway=path


there is, a path is generic while a footway is for pedestrians


cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

John Willis
In reply to this post by Richard Mann-2

On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Richard Mann <[hidden email]> wrote:

highway=path should be a rough path
highway=footway should be a made-up path with limited room for non-foot traffic (eg bicycles), or an explicit ban
highway=cycleway should be a made-up path with good room for bicycles (given other usage)


+1

I DO NOT WANT path & footway merged - we need to be able to show rough/informal paths. There are sidewlks that go up mountains, and trails that go up mountains. they are completely different, and merging the values together to be defined by subkeys is a terrible idea. we don’t define motorways and residential roads with the same value, and a rough path through the woods or an informal cut in the grass along some train tracks is not a sidewalk through a park or a footbridge over an intersection. 

As I understand it from reading bits of wiki and mailing lists (Please correct if wrong.):

From all the history, it looks like path was made to show some kind of mixed use way that footway was not good at - for mapping useful but unpaved and irregular pathways - trails, tracks, etc. A guy was pushing for this as useful for horses, I think. 

Then Track showed up, taking a lot of the path’s job for things like farming roads, fire roads, and other mixed use roads. 

Also, there’s bridleway, paths designated for horses. And cycleway too. I don’t know when they showed up, but it seems later than path. 

This leaves path to a more “rough, informal, unpaved, and/or sporadically maintained” role, narrowed down over time.  

This discussion is the result of the old definition of path clashing with it’s clearly smaller (but important) role. final step to officially narrowing path’s focus to a more limited role.  

~

I find 3-5 year old data imports where paths are marked that are clearly farming tracks or service roads (bridges!) and I retag them as appropriate. I use paths for hiking trails through forests, irregular narrow dirt paths through parks or along rivers (that brach off paved ways that are footways), and other official or in-use paths that are not paved or have a rough/impassible surface for a wheelchair, therefore not defacto "designated" for easy/effortless foot traffic and other uses (like a sidewalk). This is informal path / maintained trail / line cut through the grass is a great use for path.  


We really need an easily defined highway=path and a separate highway=footway. And the above does it very very well. 

Javbw

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Am 03.08.2015 um 12:30 schrieb johnw <[hidden email]>:
>
> From all the history, it looks like path was made to show some kind of mixed use way that footway was not good at - for mapping useful but unpaved and irregular pathways - trails, tracks, etc. A guy was pushing for this as useful for horses, I think.
>
> Then Track showed up, taking a lot of the path’s job for things like farming roads, fire roads, and other mixed use roads.
>
> Also, there’s bridleway, paths designated for horses. And cycleway too. I don’t know when they showed up, but it seems later than path.


footway, bridleway, cycleway were all already there by the time path was introduced. btw also track, but this is a different story as tracks are meant to be used by utility vehicles.

before the introduction of path a lot of fine detail of mixed use ways was lost because of the then valid dogma to classify according to the "highest"'use (foot, bike, horse), resulting - as there is no natural order among these - in arbitrary decisions based on the personal preference of the mapper for a certain means of transport.


cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Hubert87
In reply to this post by John Willis

-1.

Using that kind of definition would require to redefine the standard access restrictions or would require to always use access-tags. Plus it characterizations depends mostly on subjective impressions, as Martin already stated. Also ways accessible by foot are nearly always accessible by bicycle, too.

 

For me highway=path is a generic way in regard to access rights.

However I expect that:

highway=footway è highway=path, foot=designated, (access=no) è implies surface=paved unless stated otherwise.

highway=cycleway è highway=path, bicycle=designated, (access=no) è implies surface=paved unless stated otherwise.

highway=bridleway è highway=path, bicycle=horse, (access=no) è implies surface=unpaved unless stated otherwise.

(Note that designated doesn’t mean mandatory in this context)

 

I don’t see the problem ((or I’m missing it)) using highway=path for informal ways and implying surface=unpaved unless stated otherwise (*=designated, surface=*, etc.)

 

Yours Hubert

 

From: johnw [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Montag, 3. August 2015 12:30
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

 

 

On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Richard Mann <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

highway=path should be a rough path

highway=footway should be a made-up path with limited room for non-foot traffic (eg bicycles), or an explicit ban

highway=cycleway should be a made-up path with good room for bicycles (given other usage)

 

 

+1

 

I DO NOT WANT path & footway merged - we need to be able to show rough/informal paths. There are sidewlks that go up mountains, and trails that go up mountains. they are completely different, and merging the values together to be defined by subkeys is a terrible idea. we don’t define motorways and residential roads with the same value, and a rough path through the woods or an informal cut in the grass along some train tracks is not a sidewalk through a park or a footbridge over an intersection. 


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by John Willis


On 03/08/2015 11:30, johnw wrote:

From all the history, it looks like path was made to show some kind of mixed use way that footway was not good at - for mapping useful but unpaved and irregular pathways - trails, tracks, etc. A guy was pushing for this as useful for horses, I think. 


My understanding (and it is only that - I'd welcome more definitive evidence or the recollection of someone who's been around longer) is that "footway", "bridleway" and "cycleway" were originally for "physical characteristics match a use type of X".  So a typical highway=cycleway is constructed so that a bicycle can easily travel along it; a typical highway=footway may not be.  In Germany these terms were mapped onto specific roadsigns, with "cycleway" mapped onto "cycle only" cycleways (something that's rare in the UK) and leaving a gap for "both bicycles and pedestrians" ones (which is normal in the UK).  "highway=path" came along and filled the gap, with the access tags replaced by signage information, with "yes" or "permissive" in the access tag changed to "designated"(1).

We are where we are with tag usage worldwide - in addition to e.g. path vs cycleway we've already seen in the parallel discussion how highway=path and highway=footway mean something different in Norway(2) compared to e.g. England and Wales.  Renderers have to do the best job they can of this.  Users changing "highway=footway" to "highway=path" (as happened in response to the recent attempt to change the wiki page of "footway") without changing other tags just removes information from the map.

FWIW I don't believe that:
"The current definition ("minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively
by pedestrians") is not specific in providing definite distinctive features
between footway and path"

is actually a problem at all.  In the absense of signage, whether something is e.g. a bridleway or a footway is always going to be a value judgement (Are there wide gates rather than stiles?  Is the clear height to overhanging trees enough for a horse+rider?  Is there "evidence that the path has been used by horses recently" on the ground?).

If you don't know (perhaps you're mapping from imagery alone) then highway=path might be useful as a "vague generic basket" (to borrow Richard Mann's term) but following survey in most cases in many countries you'd be able to provide more detail than that(3). 

As to "highway=footpath", I can only offer the obligatory:

https://xkcd.com/927/

Cheers,

Andy


(1) For example, how do I tag a way that's designed mostly for horse traffic but is actually only horse=permissive without using highway=bridleway?

(2) https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-127129167

(3) In addition to surface, width, legal access, tracktype, smoothness, sac_scale, mtb:scale etc. that also help to provide more information.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Mateusz Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by John Willis
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:30:09 +0900
johnw <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I DO NOT WANT path & footway merged - we need to be able to show
> rough/informal paths.

The problem is that distinction of highway=path and highway=footway is
meaningless, like with natural=wood vs landuse=forest as it varies
from location to location and from mapper to mapper.

Various mappers use different distinctions, other consider them
equivalent (highway=path was not supposed to imply anything about
quality, importance or surface).

Changing definitions now is pointless - who is going to resurvey and
verify over 9 million highway=path/footway ways to ensure that it will
fit new definition?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Am 03.08.2015 um 17:41 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:
>
> Changing definitions now is pointless - who is going to resurvey and
> verify over 9 million highway=path/footway ways to ensure that it will
> fit new definition?


+1
for informal paths there is the informal=yes attribute which was introduced especially for this kind of feature


cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

NopMap

I think the highway=trail proposal was right on the point.

highway=path was meant as equivalent to footway, cycleway etc and is most often used that way. It's wording is unfortunate as the association with path for many people is an unmade way. So it got mistakenly used for that too, as there is no better or dedicated tag.

Using highway=trail for narrow, unmade trails would be intuitive and clarify the current ambiguity of path.

Considering that a new tag highway=via_ferrata was introduced for trails that require climbing/equipment it is weird that there still is no dedicated tag to fill the gap between well built footways/paths and a via_ferrata.  Reviving highway=trail to go in between would be logical.

bye, Nop
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Mateusz Konieczny-2
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:36:15 -0700 (MST)
NopMap <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think the highway=trail proposal was right on the point.
>
> highway=path was meant as equivalent to footway, cycleway etc and is
> most often used that way. It's wording is unfortunate as the
> association with path for many people is an unmade way. So it got
> mistakenly used for that too, as there is no better or dedicated tag.
>
> Using highway=trail for narrow, unmade trails would be intuitive and
> clarify the current ambiguity of path.
>
> Considering that a new tag highway=via_ferrata was introduced for
> trails that require climbing/equipment it is weird that there still
> is no dedicated tag to fill the gap between well built footways/paths
> and a via_ferrata. Reviving highway=trail to go in between would be
> logical.

There is plenty of cases where there is no neat classification (for
example narrow paths with gravel placed there sometimes to keep mud
from forming). Really, there is no need fro more highway values - just
add surface, tracktype, width etc.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

John Willis
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-2

On Aug 4, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

The problem is that distinction of highway=path and highway=footway is
meaningless,


I have a ton of sidewalks to map and a ton of dirt trails in the mountains informal cut-throughs in the grass to map.  the distinction is very clear to me. 

Especially in a country where there are no bridleways (horse-riding for recreation is almost non-existant) and the land is covered with concrete and asphalt sidewalks.  

I know that this is pertinent only to my mapping area - but the argument over the footpath and path about highest usage is not necessary - Go by built conditions. 

a concrete sidewalk, a concrete walkway in a park, an asphalt path along a river, a walkway through a parking lot to get to a mall entrance, a pedestrian footbridge over a river - all are built to the same usage assumptions, and people seeing the red dots can assume they can walk leaisurely without watching their feet or worry about mud. 

a dirt path through a forest, a narrow trail along a fence to cut around a field, an informal path next to a road connecting to separate sidewalk segments - all of these too have the same expectations of conditions. 

I have no issues with their distinction here. The issues arise in more complicated places.  Take the basis of these two tags and figure out a solution based on the idea of built condition and expected usage, and most of these issues will disappear. Most people can’t ride a horse down a sidewalk. Most people cant take a wheelchair up a mountain trail. and most people shouldn’t drive a car down a cycleway or through a mall. 

it’s only the edge cases that is making this so difficult. the vast majority of trails and footpaths fit neatly into the two categories above.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234 ... 7