<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/02/2022 02:12, Gruff Owen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL1KaK6=k2Db=RLi7mrhtGU0Zgtj8wG93yqf39CGqa1nBvd_1Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>Hello,<br>
</p>
<p>To echo some of what's already been said and also add a few more
comments:</p>
<ul>
<li>If something is really not any sort of path (e.g. at no point
in the year would anyone stand at one end and say "there's a
path from here to there") then it absolutely makes sense to
remove it. It sounds from what you are saying that this isn't
the case here, but I regularly remove paths from OSM that either
simply aren't there any more or perhaps never were there in the
first place. If you do remove anything, I'd actually suggest
leaving the way in place, removing the tags and adding a note
explaining why it's not really any sort of path*. If it was
definitely some sort of path historically then some lifecycle
prefix for the highway tag might work***.<br>
</li>
<li>If it should be there, but "sac_scale", "trail_visibility" or
even "hazard" tags are appropriate, then please do add them, and
perhaps split the path in the relevant place and add whatever
tags apply to the relevant piece. Not all tags will be read by
all maps and apps, but once the tags are there we can start
badgering the relevant maps and apps that don't already to
honour them**.</li>
<li>Personally, if I haven't actually surveyed something, and am
worried that there might be hazards in an area that would be
important to note, I wouldn't map it at all until I had actually
been there.</li>
<li>Strava on its own is a pretty poor source for OSM. Strava
users seem to be a particular sort of person - someone who will
hop over a wall to save a few seconds rather than following the
signposts and going through a gate. Strava's heatmap is a
useful secondary source, but is only that.</li>
<li>If you find maps and apps that misrepresent the path, or show
it to a readership that probably shouldn't be encouraged to use
it, then perhaps let OSM's Data Working Group know via email to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:data@openstreetmap.org">data@openstreetmap.org</a> . I'm a member of that, and while we
can't force map consumers to do anything we may be able to point
you in the right direction with various apps and websites so
that your comments go to the right people. The relevant issue
at for the "standard" map that you see at openstreetmap.org
(unfortunately still open) seems to be
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1500">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1500</a>
.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL1KaK6=k2Db=RLi7mrhtGU0Zgtj8wG93yqf39CGqa1nBvd_1Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
</blockquote>
There's a whole other discussion to be had about tagging both the
legality and the appropriateness of something for various modes of
transport but you are absolutely right that bicycle=no and horse=no
are correct here in OSM terms if it's CRoW Act access land and no
more than that. "foot=yes" is probably also correct for the same
reason - but just because something is legal to access doesn't mean
that it's a good idea or even physically possible - and the other
tags that you've added can be used by apps to decide whether to show
it or not - a "leisurely amble in the countryside" app could decide
not to show it, but a "hardcore mountain hiker one" could.<br>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy<br>
</p>
<p>* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/829362523">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/829362523</a> is a
(non-life-threatening) example of that</p>
<p>** Currently the tags that you've added to
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029</a> have made it disappear
from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=53.07435&lon=-4.07194">https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=53.07435&lon=-4.07194</a>
(disclaimer - my site) which is entirely correct.</p>
<p>*** <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>