[Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking

[Zsolt Bertalan]

Hi,

there is no need for path=hiking or path=footpad (unless this a road, where
you can run into highwayman, but I probably miss something).
The existing tags cover much more than I need.
Custom, undocumented tags just won't be rendered, not even on custom
renderings.

Zsolt
Herrbert74


On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
> > Describe the physical condition of a way, with tags such as 'surface' &
> let
> > the users decide if it's their idea of hikable.
>
> Let me say immediately that the ideology of "describe the physical
> characteristics, and let people make up their own mind" is deeply
> flawed at both ends. It would be extremely time consuming to collect
> the level of data to make that work - measuring widths, roughness etc
> at many points along a track. And presenting all that fine-grained
> data to end users is not useful either: it needs to be distilled into
> something that can be processed quickly by someone reading a map. I've
> got nothing against people using this approach, but I find it
> extremely impractical and inefficient for my purposes.
>
> Now, back to the discussion. I've probably tried to compress too many
> distinctions in here. There is:
> a) rough vs smooth (by "rough" I actually meant the opposite of
> "careful", not the opposite of "smooth")
> b) wide vs narrow
> c) constructed vs natural
> d) official vs unofficial
> e) dirt vs surfaced
>
> Benefits of tagging correctly would include:
> 1) routing for practical walkers (getting from A to B, avoiding muddy
> paths perhaps)
> 2) routing for recreational walkers (comfortable with a wider range of
> tracks)
> 3) routing for practical cyclists (getting from A to B)
> 4) routing for adventure/mtb cyclists (having fun)
> 5) showing on appropriate maps (unofficial footpads shouldn't show up
> on official town or park maps, even if useful)
>
> So, what kind of scheme would achieve the above, as efficiently as
> possible? I agree with Sam that it's not a trivial problem. One
> tentative idea:
>
> highway=footway: 1, 5 and maybe 3
> highway=path, path=footpad: 2 and maybe 4
>
> But how to tag a mountain bike path that pedestrians are forbidden
> from using? path=footpad, foot=no seems weird.
>
> Alternatives would be to focus on the official/unofficial distinction,
> the surface, the width etc. But these seem a bit indirect. Thoughts?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110717/619b2b37/attachment-0001.html>