<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">As it is the minimum width that will
limit passage, I would prefer to see the minimum with tagged not
the average width. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/5/20 3:23 am, Daniel Westergren
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACu35BUzQiGZJ2Egwm3t8yGECYE-ngUEnd6dUEFfF1F-z4VBOw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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">In the short term, it's okay to tag an
estimated, average width. If it's 1 to 0.3 meters, use 0.5
- this still shows a difference from a path which is 1.5
to 4 meters wide (which you might estimate as 2.5
meters?).<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps it could be added to the <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath</a> that
width is for the tread on the ground and that for sections
that vary in width, break them down or estimate an average
width? Then it will be more clear for mappers who are
reading about how to use width for highway=path
particularly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would also suggest that smoothness is added in the
Tagging section of that page, as it's very helpful when
smoothness for a path is added. For now, it's only in the
"Useful combination" section and may be missed by many. And
by the way, for StreetComplete it's now being discussed to
filter for only highway=path|track that either has a
smoothness tag with a value of bad or worse, or
surface=ground or equivalent, when asking for MTB
difficulty.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And lastly, what if something is also added for surface,
to describe why it's an important tag to distinguish
different kinds of paths from each other?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/Daniel</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </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>-- Joseph Eisenberg</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 22, 2020 at
9:22 AM Jake Edmonds via Tagging <<a
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">tagging@openstreetmap.org</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="auto">I’m going to throw this in rather
randomly but the reason i don’t tag width and surface
is that the footpaths I’m mapping vary widely. Getting
wider and thinner and going from gravel to dirt to
sections with many trees roots. Plus the surface tag
is rather subjective. <br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 22 May 2020, at 17:48,
Daniel Westergren <<a
href="mailto:westis@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">westis@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Yeah, I think in terms of tagging
we don't get further in this discussion. But it
has been very valuable to me. I've done a
couple of video tutorials about the basics of
mapping trails in OSM and the next one will be
about what tags to use and why.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They are in Swedish, but I'm planning to do
English versions later as well. It's probably
been done before, but I guess we need to use
different ways in this widespread community to
reach mappers to get more useful data to work
with.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And regarding rendering of surface... Yeah,
both an advantage and disadvantage of OSM is
its diversity. What for many sounds like the
only logical way may conflict with the views
of others.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Great work with your rendering btw! I'd
love to discuss more about that outside of
this mailing list, as I'm also helping out
with creating a custom rendering for trail
running purposes. OpenStreetMap is indeed very
urban-centred still, which brings me back to
my opening lines of this thread, that OSM
hasn't caught up with how lots of people
actually are using it now, like routing and
rendering for hiking, cycling and running,
areas where Google Maps etc. are and will
continue to be way behind.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for valuable input!!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/Daniel</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Den fre 22 maj
2020 kl 17:26 skrev Andy Townsend <<a
href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ajt1047@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">On
22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote:<br>
> And there actually seems to be a pull
request finally solving the <br>
> paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7
years ago?!? <br>
> <a
href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137</a><br>
><br>
> If that makes it to the default map it
will certainly help people to <br>
> tag surface, because they will see that
it makes sense.<br>
><br>
><br>
I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound like it,
but this does read <br>
somewhat as if rendering "surface" on paths is
somehow "obvious" and <br>
"easy", and it's an "oversight" that the OSM
Carto folks haven't been <br>
doing it since basically forever.<br>
<br>
It's not - I think that pnorman's comment of <br>
<a
href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399#issuecomment-596656115"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399#issuecomment-596656115</a>
<br>
still applies:<br>
<br>
> I'm of the opinion that the only way we
can get the cartographic <br>
"space" to render unpaved surfaces is to drop
something else, like <br>
access restriction rendering.<br>
<br>
I think that there's another problem with the
standard style as well - <br>
aside from surface rendering it's hugely
biased towards urban centres. <br>
Looking at <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856</a>
you <br>
can't see any paths at all at that zoom level
due to the "Central <br>
European Graveyard problem" - compare with <br>
<a
href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13&lat=53.9006&lon=-0.8795"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13&lat=53.9006&lon=-0.8795</a>
<br>
to see what you're missing.<br>
<br>
What we need are concrete suggestions of how
to get there from here, <br>
(and Ture Pålsson's mail of <br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-May/052747.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-May/052747.html</a>
<br>
is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for).<br>
<br>
Adding a sane surface rendering in addition to
everything else is hard - <br>
I've not managed it across the board at <a
href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://map.atownsend.org.uk</a>
<br>
although that is influenced by sac_scale,
trail_visibility and width. <br>
All suggestions gratefully received, but
what's needed some code that <br>
people can play with and see what the effect
is on various areas and <br>
different zoom levels - not just emails to the
tagging list*.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
* yes, I do realise the irony of "yet another
email to the tagging list"!<br>
<br>
75 Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not
approved<br>
58 Remove non-prefixed versions of
'contact:' scheme<br>
49 RFC ele:regional<br>
42 relations & paths<br>
35 Doorzone bicycle lanes<br>
34 Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email<br>
28 Feature Proposal - RFC -
Recreational route relation roles<br>
27 Reviving the path discussion - the
increasing importance of <br>
trails in OSM<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>