<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 26, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" class="">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">May 26, 2020, 20:50 by <a href="mailto:bradhaack@fastmail.com" class="">bradhaack@fastmail.com</a>:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class="">Yes! We have an overload of tags for trails, many poorly defined, many rarely used. KISS - keep it simple stupid. I think it would help if we narrowed the focus for cycleway and footway.<br class=""></div><div class="">How about this, as default:<br class=""></div><div class="">cycleway - paved path that a typical tourist or casual rider can ride on a road bike.<br class=""></div><div class="">footway - smooth path, very firm surface or paved that is good for someone with less than average ability.<br class=""></div><div class="">bridleway- for exclusive (or almost exclusive ) horse trails<br class=""></div><div class="">path - for everything else. Implies not paved. Routers should not route road bikers here.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The difficulty for bikes (& maybe hiking) can be simple green/blue/black similar to what is used on US bike trails, and ski areas.<br class=""></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The tricky part is that such redefining is not solving problem of already collected data.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You need to resurvey all already collected data and mark it as reviewed (by adding some tag,<br class=""></div><div class="">for example reviewed_to_new_path_scheme=yes or explicit surface value).<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Overall I see no benefit over explicit tagging of a surface value.</div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Not necessarily a tricky part: First, this is more of a clarification than a redefinition. Second, there is no need to immediately retag everything as the situation before clarification of these meanings isn’t really any different that it would be after (renderers will have to rely on the current jumbled mess of modifier tags for a while).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But agreeing on these definitions would mean in the medium term renderers and routers could clean up their logic which would the point to ways that have tagging that needs review (when a trail ceases to be shown or routed over it is likely someone will notice and fix the tagging).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In my part of the world the interpretation of the existing tags pretty much matches the above so little, if any, retagging of hiking paths or city park walkways would be needed in my area.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cheers!</div><div class="">Tod</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>