Talk:Footpath

Urban studies and planning Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Usage of term for pedestrian movement[edit]

This page was a straight redirect to Trail, which is simply wrong for many English speakers. In Irish, Australia, New Zealand, and Indian English usage, a footpath is always unambiguously a sidewalk, and "footpath" is the primary term used to refer to such. An immediate redirect to Trail is confusing for any English speaker from those cultures, so this needs to be disambiguated here rather than redirected. -dmmaus 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The most common English use of footpath is a path through fields or woods - what the US calls a trail. The hatnote at the trail article redirected people to other uses of footpath. Now it is incorrect. Can an administrator please swap footpath and footpath (disambiguation). --Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a summary of different terms used around the world for trails and footpaths in the 'Etymology/Usage' of the Trail article; also the 'Terminology' section in the Sidewalk article. Can we build up a more comprehensive picture of English speaking terminology in those articles? Personally I think their is a place for an further article discussing urban and shorter paths that are not associated with a highway and that this would be the logical place to do it. PeterEastern (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make this an article of its own[edit]

I think that there needs to be an article for Footpath instead of a disambiguation page. A footpath is a path, way, or course that allows for pedestrian use. Types of footpaths include: walking trails, pedestrain ways, hiking trails, snowshoe trails and running courses. Some footpaths prohibit non-pedestrian use. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this work - its certainly good to see progress with this article however I suggest that the scope is tightened to cover only short paths (often urban) to compliment the trail article which has a focus on longer distance paths. I suggest that we build up the thoroughfare article to be an 'umbrella' article for all types of path. I have moved some content to the thoroughfare article, tweeked the trail lead and reworked to lead of this article to that effect. Lets work on the articles over the next few days and see how they come together. PeterEastern (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that narrowing the scope in regards to the length of path is correct. There are plenty of country paths or wilderness paths, like in protected wilderness areas, that are limited to only pedestrian travel. I think that's where the scope of the article needs to be narrowed, perhaps. Make it a stricter sense of the term. So, "a footpath is a thoroughfare where only pedestrian travel is allowed"? Worded better though.- tSR - Nth Man (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be both trying to edit the article at the same time - here is the lead I was proposing "A footpath (pedestrian way, footway) is a thoroughfare intended for pedestrian use and possibly also by other simpler transport modes. Footpaths normally prohibit motor vehicles, however some allow bicycle and other simpler non-motorised vehicles. Terminology varies and in some places the same terms may be used tovdescribe a sidewalk (beside a road) or a trail (a longer distance path for hiking). The term footpath can also refer to erosion on a surface, such as soil, due to it being walked upon.^{[citation needed]} In some regions, such as in England and Wales, there are paths on which the public have a legally protected right to travel on foot." PeterEastern (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trail?[edit]

Would it make sense to merge this short article with Trail? Are there any objections? Surely they are the same thing, though trail may include other kinds of path. Rwood128 (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there is a major overlap between the two articles. However it may be controversial which name you keep, as "trail" is mainly an American term, and "path" is used in UK. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's maybe true, but there is just one Hiking page and Walking -- to my initial confusion -- isn't another hiking page. Furthermore, the word trail appears to be regularly used today in the UK: The government sponsored long distance paths and ways, in England and Wales, are National Trails. I googled "British trails" and found numerous other examples, including several newspaper articles on "hiking trails". All the same path is undoubtedly the preferred term. Rwood128 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would stick my neck out and say that 'trail' is **not used at all** in the UK except for the official designation of various long-distance routes as 'National Trails'. In the future it may gradually creep into everyday use as part of the Americanization of British English, but for now 'footpath' is what people say. (British newspaper articles about 'hiking trails' are most likely written by people who know nothing about hiking and walking, otherwise they wouldn't use what is clearly the wrong term.)

In addition, all the signs say 'public footpath' on them; the word trail is not used at all in signage or on Ordnance Survey maps. It's also worth mentioning that there is an important official distinction between footpaths and bridleways ('footpaths' are for pedestrians only, whereas on 'bridleways' horse-riders and cyclists are also allowed). But, in American parlance, 'trail' would cover both. Dubmill (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rather stuck my neck out, because I haven't lived in the UK for many years. But one reason for merging the articles is that the word trail covers a variety of paths in both British and North American usage. Is there a real need for a separate footpath article? Rwood128 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not. I think a single article could cover the entire topic, but currently I think this article gives a better overview of the topic from a British perspective. Also, I think the introduction of this article is much better written than that of the trail article. Further, the trail article as a whole is messy, and I would be wary of just merging the content from this page into that. I agree with you that ideally there should be a single page, with well-defined sections within it dealing with different aspects of the topic, including the use of different terms in different parts of the world, but that it should be much better written and organized than the current trail article. Dubmill (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points and I suggest that the merge be delayed until improvements are made to the trail article. Rwood128 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve Trail but a second pair of eyes are really needed.Rwood128 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, and in light of the above commentsI, don't think that the merge should go ahead. I will withdraw the merge proposal, unless anyone objects. Rwood128 (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Footpath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Photo[edit]

To me, the first photo on this article seems blurry and low quality, and I feel like it should be replaced with something clearer. Any suggestions? Margalob (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Content[edit]

Three years ago, I added this statement with a source from Bruce Vandervort. I copied this from the African military systems (1800–1900) wiki page. However, after reviewing the source I cannot verify the given paragraph. I have taken out what I added 3 years ago due to a verification problem. As a new editor back then, I was impetuous in cross-checking sources copied from Wikipedia articles. I apologize if this has caused issues. Kwesi Yema (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]