<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 30, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <<a href="mailto:graemefitz1@gmail.com" class="">graemefitz1@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">Something else that I've just thought about & not sure whether it would need to be mentioned - possibility of encountering dangerous wildlife?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Yes, there are 1000 things in the Australian bush that'll kill you :-), but none of them will actually eat you! (not even Drop Bears! <a href="https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/animals/mammals/drop-bear/" class="">https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/animals/mammals/drop-bear/</a> :-)) Same applies to (virtually?) all of Western Europe, but how about North America, Africa, Asia & so on? Do we have / need a way of tagging that bears (or whatever) may be encountered while walking in this area? <br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Just about every trail head in my local area has warning signs about rattlesnakes and mountain lions [1]. One of the local county operated wilderness parks was closed this week because of mountain lion sightings.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>But for the moment my goal is not tagging for dangerous wildlife but rather how can a mapper simply indicate that the way is a non-urban hiking (and possibly mountain biking and equestrian) trail.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I’ve spent too much time recently trying to figure out how to better determine whether the ways I am rendering should be shown as an urban/suburban walkway versus a non-urban hiking trail (intentionally not using “footway” and “path” as words for this). For straight rendering it doesn’t seem to be too big a deal if I get it slightly wrong, the map just looks uglier than I’d like.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>But I am trying to display accurate mileage numbers on hiking trails and that means combining ways that are, for my purposes, functionally equivalent descriptions of a hiking trail: I really don’t want the distance between changes in width or surface or even bridges, so I need to “heal” those edges in my graph based on a simple hiking_trail=yes|no check. My Postgresql/PostGIS/osmfilter/osm2pgrouting skills aren’t great so I am probably missing something. But all the ways I’ve come with to munge the various surface/sac_scale/width/trail_visibility/width/etc. combinations into a simple “this is a hiking trail or not” are neither accurate nor fast to run on tagging I am finding in the field. There just has to be a better way to map these things!</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Cheers!</div><div>Tod</div><div><br class=""></div><div>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar" class="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar</a></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>