<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/2/2020 9:29 AM, Paul Johnson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMPM96rPzVB+XWKSuu6LwDnDVHCdKtrpJ42OMbi1JAnt8ff54w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:10
AM Andrew Harvey <<a
href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">andrew.harvey4@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">My view based on current usage, reading of
the wiki and general opinion is that highway=cycleway is
meant for any path that is either designed/intended for
bicycles or specifically designated (signposted) for
bicycles, irrespective of if it's an urban track or
mountain biking track.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So a mountain bike track and an urban cycle track
should both be tagged with highway=cycleway as the
primary tag. surface= and smoothness= can help for both
to help guide users on which kind of bicycle the track
is suitable for, and mtb:scale=/mtb:scale:imba= are used
to indicate this is a designated mountain biking track. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>highway=path is specifically for a general use /
unspecified path, which a mountain biking track may be
if it's informal/shared, but purpose built and
signposted mountain bike tracks don't fall into that
category.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A similar thing applies to hiking tracks, sometimes
they are designated walking paths so use
highway=footway + surface + sac_scale, but sometimes
they are just an unmarked or mixed use path so are
highway=path + surface + sac_scale.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is also my read on it. But we also need more than
just highway=path/cycleway and sometimes footway for bicycle
facilities, there's a bigger hierarchy than this. Also seen
a lot of situations where highway=cycleway_link would be
handy.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Perhaps highway=mtbway, which would be to cycleway what track is
to residential. It's ugly but it seems that a lot of people feel
that highway=path is not an ideal tag for a purpose-built mountain
bike trail. If highway=cycleway + mtb:scale above 1 is considered
troll tagging, then maybe mtbway is worth considering.</p>
<p>Btw, since the original example Phyks posted is one of mine, I
can describe exactly how the tagging happened:</p>
<p> - Noticing local mtb trails tagged as hw=cycleway (can't
remember which ones exactly).<br>
- Reading the cycleway wiki page and seeing no counterindications
to this tagging, concluding that a mountain bike is a bicycle and
that trails primarily designed for mountain bikes should be
cycleways.<br>
- Visiting this park and seeing from the park map and personal
observation that some trails were primarily designed for mountain
bikes.<br>
- Reading the park map where trails are described as "easier",
"more difficult", and "most difficult" which I mapped to mtb:scale
0, 1, and 2 -- with a clear changeset comment that these values
are guesses and should be revised by knowledgeable people. (I'm
not a mountain biker myself; I walked these trails.)</p>
Is mtb:scale=2 correct for this trail? Maybe not. Maybe I should
have mapped them to 0, 0+, and 1. Maybe they're all 0. But these
ratings are kind of subjective. Could a general purpose bicycle
handle this trail? I'm sorry to say that I can't remember. I'll
survey again when I can, but someone experienced with mountain
biking could probably do better.
<p>Jason<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>