<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br><br></div><div><br>On Jun 15, 2016, at 7:04 PM, Richard Fairhurst <<a href="mailto:richard@systemed.net">richard@systemed.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span>John Willis wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>how does one go about separating mountain trails from footpaths in a park</span><div style="display: none;"><br></div></blockquote><span></span><br><span><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale</a> is popular for doing that.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Richard</span><br></blockquote><div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">On Jun 15, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></span></font></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">well, you can see from the data that a path / footway is in a park, because it is in a park. It's a geospatial database, and the park should be mapped as an area.<br><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Cheers,<br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Martin</span></font></div></blockquote><br></div><div>So SAC scale and being outside a park polygon/relation is good enough to allow a data consumer and the folks over in -carto to render a "footway" and a "trail" differently and reliably enough? What happens when I have a strong mix of =pedestrian, =footway, and ="trail"? In the same park area?</div><div><br></div><div>Why isn't having a footway=trail subtag (or something) seen as a much more reliable solution? </div><div><br></div><div>When most of the trails will fall in the lowest tier of the SAC scale, is it merely the presence of a SAC scale tag that tells you it is a "trail?" Would we have to tag a cut-through with a SAC tag to get the way to render differently to show it's status as "below a sidewalk"? </div><div><br></div><div>It seems to me - as a person who is a Kountry Kilometer away from being data consumer - that using a subtag or similar to let mappers tag trails and other rough footways (the "track" end of footway) is a much more straightforward and direct solution to get trails to render differently than more casual and easily traversed footways found in a city park or rose garden. </div><div><br></div><div>I am really having trouble understanding the reasoning behind the resistance when it removes uncertainty and confusion while tagging. </div><div><br></div><div>Javbw. </div></body></html>