[Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking

[Craig Wallace]

On 16/07/2011 15:27, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse
> <lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk>  wrote:
>> "highway=path, path=hiking" doesn't say any more to me than
>> "highway=footway" on its own would.
>
> The distinction is "well constructed" versus "rough, minimal maintenance".
>
> highway=path, path=hiking:
> http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path-1-238412973779541Zf.jpg
>
> highway=footway:
> http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through-Strid-Wood_web.jpg?&k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood
>
> This distinction exists and is meaningful. The question is whether
> this is a good way to express it.

There are plenty of "hiking paths" that are well constructed, and not 
rough or narrow. So I don't think path=hiking is very useful at 
specifying that difference.
Also, some rough / narrow paths might be used for mountain biking or 
horse riding etc, not just hiking.

What about something equivalent to tracktype? ie with numbers/grades. So 
your first photo could be grade 4 or 5, and the second photo grade 1.


Craig