Footpaths

[SteveSnail]

Hi All

Have found a number of footpaths mapped around Letchworth and was wondering if these should even be mapped at all:

https://www.waze.com/en-GB/editor/?env=row&lon=-0.20811&lat=51.96076&layers=773&zoom=4&mode=0&mapProblemFilter=0&mapUpdateRequestFilter=0&venueFilter=2&update_requestsFilter=truemaar&problemsFilter=false&u pdate_requestsFilter=false&lo%20...%20ueFilter=0&apProblemFilter=0&%3BapProblemFilter=0maar&segments=302958584,320071060,320071058,320071100

There’s others locally as well.

I can’t find very much (of help) in the Wiki regarding these, so would appreciate some advice on whether these should or should not be mapped in Waze.

Personally, I would have thought not but would appreciate your thoughts or being pointed in the right direction on the Wiki.

Thanks

[PhantomFlanFlinger]

This editor pops up now and again adding in paths.

IMHO, unless they’re an aid to navigation, they’re not necessary.

I have deleted his paths in the past.

At least this time he’s not trying to connect them to the roads.

[PealRinger]

The best Wiki guidance is probably from the US where they are called ‘Walking Trails’:
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/USA#Walking_Trails which states:

“Never use the Walking Trail road type for ordinary hiking paths or bike paths. Most hiking and bicycling paths should not be on the map at all.”

I agree with this and would only use footpaths when they are needed for navigation to specific addresses/places, or act as a navigation aid, and they should definitely not be named things like ‘walking path’ or ‘bike path’!

If it deemed useful to have them on the map then they should generally never be connected to routable segments. There are very (very) few occasions when we need them as the only way to access a location, in which case Waze will route you to the junction of the footpath from where you can walk the rest of the way.

[Twister-UK]

@PealRinger

The best Wiki guidance is probably from the US where they are called ‘Walking Trails’:
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/USA#Walking_Trails which states:

“Never use the Walking Trail road type for ordinary hiking paths or bike paths. Most hiking and bicycling paths should not be on the map at all.”

I agree with this and would only use footpaths when they are needed for navigation to specific addresses/places, or act as a navigation aid, and they should definitely not be named things like ‘walking path’ or ‘bike path’!

I’d personally add to this that, if the footpath could be mistaken for a driveable road in the current aerial imagery, then it’s also worth mapping as a non-connected footpath in WME. If it isn’t, then sooner or later someone else will come along and map it out anyway, and if we’re lucky they’ll realise that it is a footpath and map it correctly, but if we’re not then they’ll think it’s a driveable road and map it as such…

Particularly things like roads which then continue on as tarmaced cycle or footpaths (and especially so if they then turn back into a road a little way further on - e.g. housing estates where what would otherwise be a through-route gets turned into back to back cul-de-sacs), and where the only clue in the aerial imagery are a couple of tiny blobs of slightly different shading indicating where the bollards are that mark the end of the driveable section.

[SteveSnail]

Thanks guys, that kind of confirms what I was thinking. Sounds like I’m ok to delete the ones I found then as I don’t see them adding any aid to navigation…

[whyte46]

When doing my day to checks and the wonderful world of updating speed limits I am still seeing walking trials being created for no reason what so ever, and from a variety of editor levels last one i found was a level 5 and from what i can tell has not benefit to the area I am managing.
I understand to use them when there is a street only accessible via walking but can we have some real clarification and if possible some clampdown on there use as they just a distraction when editing the map
Thanks Ian