<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Ok, so I realize there will not really be any other way to distinguish an urban, paved path from a small forest path, other than by other attributes than highway=path itself. Path=mtb is nice for paths specifically created for MTB and nothing else. But I don't see an easily verifiable way of doing the same for other forest/mountain/meadow paths.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So we're stuck with other attributes, which mappers should be encouraged to always use together with highway=path. Like there should never be a highway=path without a surface tag. Currently only 21% of highway=path has a surface tag, which contributes to the problem we're discussing.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>Then there is width, which is only tagged on 3.5% of highway=path. I was discussing width of paths in another forum. For a forest path, would you say width is measured as the actual tread on the ground only? For a runner and MTB cyclist that would make sense, but for a hiker with a big backpack a width of 0.3 m may mean they think it's not possible to walk there. </div><div><br></div><div>See these three paths for example:</div><div>1. <a href="https://ibb.co/TkJ2V1g">https://ibb.co/TkJ2V1g</a></div>2. <a href="https://ibb.co/Cmtp6LK">https://ibb.co/Cmtp6LK</a><br>3. <a href="https://ibb.co/qgjW5dz">https://ibb.co/qgjW5dz</a><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>/Daniel<br></div></font></div><div class="gmail-yj6qo gmail-ajU" style="outline:none;padding:10px 0px;width:22px;margin:2px 0px 0px"><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Den tors 21 maj 2020 kl 23:09 skrev Volker Schmidt <<a href="mailto:voschix@gmail.com">voschix@gmail.com</a>>:<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"><div><br></div><div>I am not a fan of the confusing use of highway=path for foot-cycleways and narrow mountain hiking ways, but that is a fact in OSM, and we need to live with that.</div><div><br></div><div>However I would like to underline that highway=cycleway or highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated do not necessarily imply the suitability of the way for normal bicycles.. These tags only tell you about he legal access of the way. Surface, smoothness, and width (or est_width), together with the elevation profile (data that is not in OSM) are also needed for bicycle routing..</div><div>For hiking paths you have in addition SAC-scale and MTB-scale.</div><div><br></div><div>Examples of unpaved cycleways in my city: <br></div><div><a href="https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Ezjn-npOmRSQ-dHkMztzlQ" target="_blank">https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Ezjn-npOmRSQ-dHkMztzl</a> (cycleway)<br></div><div><a href="https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/DWHevDzL7i9eQDYSNbCJcg" target="_blank">https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/DWHevDzL7i9eQDYSNbvCJcg</a> (foot-cycleway)<br></div><div><a href="https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lAnBsThrDjTxjhvfXhB0Yg" target="_blank">https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lAnBsThrDjTxjhvfXhB0Yg</a> (cycle lane)</div><div><br></div><div>The problem is guessing by routers in case of incomplete tagging. Just to get myself an idea I checked:<br></div><div>My city shows 1533 ways tagged as cycleways and foot-cycleways, of which 91.7% with surface, 54.7% with smoothness, 52.1% with width <br></div><div>(This excludes all cycle lanes and a few cycleways that are not present as separate ways in OSM)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Basically we have the instruments - let's use them instead of inventing new tags.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 16:15, Adam Franco <<a href="mailto:adamfranco@gmail.com" target="_blank">adamfranco@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"><div>For those who missed it, a related discussion was just had on this list about differentiating mountain-biking trails from cycleways.<br></div><div>See the resulting proposal for path=mtb <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb</a> and threads from April in Tagging: <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-April/051864.html" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-April/051864.html</a> <br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:51 AM Andy Townsend <<a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com" target="_blank">ajt1047@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>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 21/05/2020 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>Similarly anyone creating<br>
</div>
<div>highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" +
foot=yes"<br>
</div>
<div>should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or
other less harmful activity.<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>While "danger" isn't a much used tag (and I'm sure wasn't a
serious suggestion here -
<a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/danger#values" target="_blank">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/danger#values</a> ), sometimes
"foot=yes" is correct and other tags need to be taken into
account. I've used the area around
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431056034" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431056034</a> as an example of that
before. Here "foot=yes" is correct - there is a legal right of
access. "<a title="The wiki description page for the sac_scale
tag" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac%0D%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20scale?uselang=en-GB" target="_blank">sac_scale</a>=demanding_alpine_hiking" also
makes sense here I think.</p>
<p>I take Frederik's reference to Andy Allan's point about "a
multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering
anything with a highway tag the same as their most minor road
style" but frankly there's simply no solution to that - presumably
"highway=dangerouspath" (to make up a nonsensical value) or
<a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=via%20ferrata" target="_blank">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=via%20ferrata</a> would
still get shown as a "road".<br>
</p>
<p>Map styles need to be clear about what they're showing and what
they're not showing and people using maps need to be able to read
maps so that they understand what they're being told. This isn't
really a tagging issue, unless OSM mappers aren't using
appropriate other tags when they should (sac_scale,
trail_visibility, surface, etc.)</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>