[Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

[John Smith]

On 26 October 2010 20:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/26 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
>> On 26 October 2010 07:53, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
>>> I would consider those to be informal=yes, were I to use this tag.
>>
>> As Felix pointed out, that doesn't add anything useful to describe the
>> current state of the path, only how it may have been formed,
>
>
> "anything useful" vs "only" ;-)
> I understand that you don't consider this useful, I do. Especially in parks.

Knowing the current state of the path is useful information to know,
knowing the sort of obstacles that may be covering the path is useful
information to know, knowing the surface of the path is useful
information to know, knowing how the path was created isn't useful any
more than any other historical information.

>> the first
>> picture you posted looks like it would be much easier to traverse than
>> the second, but tagging as informal doesn't tell me that.
>
>
> and? Nobody ever said informal would add information about the ease to use.

Ease of use would be very useful for foot routing.

The point I'm trying to make is what value does adding an informal tag
actually add to the information? Does it help with routing? does it
help people make informed decisions about walking on a path?