On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 07:44:19AM +0200, Martin Simon wrote:
Using path-tag for cycleways would loose some information about the road type. I think most real paths (where you can cycle) are much different from real cycleways. I'd assume most paths to be narrow and probably surface=earth. I'd not assume that for a cycleway.
No, highway=path doesn't mean "narrow foot path in the woods, orcs lurking behind the trees", it can be any minor way (think "smaller than track") and can have any surface. The whole point is to have a way-type without much implications that can represent "footway/cycleway/bridleway" and any other way types with and without designation for one or more modes of transport, using the *=designated or *=official tags.
Right, I hope that we can deprecate highway=cycleway and use highway=path with the (varying) implicit assumptions spelled out: lit=yes/no, segregated=yes/no, bicycle=yes/no/designated/official, foot=yes/no/designated/official, surface=paved/unpaved/.... Then rendering, translation or routing tools will not need to make any educated guesses. If you think that highway=path is misleading for a cycleway, then think about highway=steps. Stairs are quite different from highways. :-) Marko