path, footway, cycleway ambiguity

[chen-ye]

There's still a lot of ambiguity in OSM about how different kinds of paths should be coded (see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy).

There's also a wide variety of features coded as "paths" that should probably be differentiated from each other, especially on non-automotive maps (maps for cycling, hiking, etc): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_examples.

To differentiate these, could OMT include the bicycle/foot/horse and surface: tags from OSM?

[klokan]

Yes it could - make a proposal for modification of the schema please.

[Phyks]

Hi,

I am interested in this issue as well, and this would likely solve #512.

Concerning the surface, I would add a surface field to the transportation layer. I can make a PR for this.

Is adding the bicycle/foot/horse fields as well fine? I guess these should be added only on path highways?

Thanks

[MartinMikita]

Hello @Phyks,

Yes, you can add a new attribute surface to distinguish these types in the transportation layer. Bicycle, foot, horse should be enough for now.

Please, prepare a PR, and we would appreciate, if you could compare what would be the final effect - the size of MBTiles, size of the database, time of importing and rendering (before and after your change).
You could start with smaller states like Albania, and probably prepare and compare the results on Switzerland or Czech Republic, these have a lot of bicycle ways.

This could help us to decide if we would include it in the official OpenMapTiles scheme in the next release (v3.10).

[zstadler]

The approach for handling bicycle = designated implemented in #573 is different than the approach requested in issue #512.

As @nnhubbard noted, the different values of the bicycle tag should be preserved so they can be styled differently if needed.