<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks so much for all of your thoughts on this. I'm bowled over by the amount of knowledge and enthusiasm there is out there!</div><div><br></div><div>I'm currently leaning towards amending the tags for the Way rather than removing it altogether. Being a very popular mountain, and the route is walked by some, I think there is a good chance someone would replace the Way if it were removed - as a number of folks have suggested.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks to everyone who's suggested suitable Tags for this track. I think I'll go-ahead and add the below and include a reference to this discussion in the changeset.<br></div><div><div><br></div><div>sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking</div></div>trail_visibility=horrible<br><div>width=narrow</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I was interested to read the discussion about the use of highway=path for mountaineering routes. It sounds to me that highway=path + sac_scale=* should be sufficient in most circumstances and that the debate is more about the semantics of the word "path" than the practicalities of its use? Happy to be corrected though! I guess a lot of Tag discussions on OSM are about semantics.</div><div><br></div><div>I was also interested to read of some similar examples in Macquarie Pass National Park. This sounds like a similar scenario - although the Park Authority haven't requested a change in this instance. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I'll leave both bicycle=no and horse=no there for now as well, not out of subjective belief of route unsuitability - although it almost certainly is unsuitable for horse or bike! - but because there is currently no right to use CRoW access land on a horse or bike</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again for all of your help and the interesting discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>All the best,</div><div><br></div><div>Gruff<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 at 00:06, Michael Collinson <<a href="mailto:mike@ayeltd.biz">mike@ayeltd.biz</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>I haven't seen any discussion of this tag as informal=yes or
perhaps usefully extended to informal=animal_track<br>
</p>
<p><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal</a></p>
<p>And FYI, there is a whole discussion on discouraged or closed
paths in talk-au where park rangers are often keen to completely
remove such paths. Opinion is split on whether that is a good idea
or whether they should stay with appropriate tagging for
navigation purposes (which as a hiker who occasionally got
confused with OS maps not showing everything on the ground - I
agree whole heartedly) and "well, it will just get put back".<br>
</p>
<p><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/thread.html" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/thread.html</a><br>
</p>
<p><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/015541.html" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/015541.html</a></p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
<div>On 2022-02-06 07:50, Tom Crocker wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022, 16:59 Dudley Ibbett, <<a href="mailto:dudleyibbett@hotmail.com" target="_blank">dudleyibbett@hotmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<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">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">If
there is an issue of this becoming popular then I
guess the land owner will need to make a decision
about whether they want to discourage access on the
ground by putting up notices/fences to avoid further
erosion of the landscape. I have seen this done by
the National Trust and other organisations. <br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Again,
if safety is a real issue a warning notice on the
ground might be a consideration.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If signs were put up then access=discouraged;
foot=discouraged tags would seem appropriate, although
again whether they are evaluated appropriately is another
matter.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote></div>