[Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledgeofthe law?
mikh43 at googlemail.com
Mon Dec 14 19:01:39 GMT 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Craig Wallace
> Sent: 14 December 2009 18:39
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without
> explicit knowledgeofthe law?
> On 14/12/2009 16:37, Mike Harris wrote:
> >> Well, first of all, what you describe would still be correctly
> >> labeled as a "path". However, I have to really doubt that 90% of
> >> ways tagged with path are "probably unsuitable for any
> traffic other
> >> than pedestrian". Maybe 90% are unpaved, but unpaved does
> not mean
> >> "unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian". And there's
> >> already a tag for surface=paved/unpaved. That's my
> problem with the
> >> current usage. We shouldn't have a tag for surface=unpaved and a
> >> second tag for highway=surface_probably_unpaved.
> > 100% of the paths I tag as highway=path are definitely
> impossible for
> > anything other than pedestrians - perhaps I'm in a more
> rural area than you?
> > E.g. undefined paths across fields interrupted by gates,
> stiles, etc.
> > - or upland / mountain hiking trails across moorland / bog
> / scree /
> > rocks. On these the surface changes so often with the
> terrain that the
> > surface= tag, which I use widely in other circumstances, is
> not very helpful.
> "definitely impossible"? That sounds like a challenge... I'm
> sure some people could ride (parts of it) on a mountain bike
> (or on a horse).
> The surface tag doesn't need to exact, just the typical (or
> worse part?) for each section.
> Also, it sounds like its worth using some extra tags, eg
> sac_scale / mtb:scale, especially for the upland hiking
> trails. Or maybe even "smoothness".
Well, I'm always up for a challenge! But I'm talking about paths across
fields with crops - ever tried biking through a maize (US: corn) field - or
over a ploughed field - or through bracken - and after about 50 stiles even
the keenest biker might get a little jaded - quite apart from the fact that
the legality of biking might also be an issue ... There may well be a brave
soul out there but I'm tagging for what 95% of people would do 95% of the
Not keen on the smoothness= tag as some of the suggested values are a bit
weird and highly subjective - tend to prefer surface= .. All a matter of
Take your point on upland hiking scales - I note that the German community
is pretty efficient at this and I probably need to look harder at what is
being done in this area - but wil it leave me time to get out there and walk
/ survey ? (:>)
> > Unpaved is not necessarily rough - I know of plenty of cycleways /
> > footways / paths / tracks that have a smooth compacted
> gravel surface
> > that I would regards as unpaved but allows cycling at well
> over 20 kph
> > (usually without a bell and at great peril to walkers -
> only kidding
> > bike-guys - well almost only ... )
> Yes, I agree, surface=unpaved doesn't say much about what the
> path is made of, just that its not tarmac / concrete etc. For
> the examples you describe, it would be more useful to use
> something like surface=gravel or surface=compacted.
Agree ... I usually try to be fairly specific with the surface tags and do
sue surface=gravel for example.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging