John F. Eldredge
john at jfeldredge.com
Mon Mar 2 17:15:12 UTC 2015
Speaking from an American point of view, I tend to think of "hiking" as a
wilderness, or at least rural, activity. In an urban setting, I would
likely refer to "walking".
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
On March 2, 2015 5:45:13 AM moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2015, fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I just say, that out of the 25,000 objects tagged with route=foot over
> > 21,000 have been tagged either network=lwn or network=rwn and would be
> > better tagged route=hiking as that is the route type for hiking routes.
> > In general, I do not like route=foot but I sustain the description on
> > the German wiki page and the little passage at the beginning of the
> > second table on the English wiki page of route=hiking.
> I think that's where the language nuance comes in. To me, "hiking" is
> a special variant of "walking". Something linked to sport, or love of
> the outdoors. In contrast, route=foot looks like it caters to more
> "utilitarian" reasons, where walking is the mean but not the goal.
> The most obvious example being tourist trails to see the attractions
> of a city. Tourists would rather do as little walking as possible to
> see the different POIs. And it's perfectly reasonable for those routes
> to have a network=*. In fact, I'd find any route relation with neither
> network=* nor operator=* a bit suspicious.
> To sum it up: I feel there's a usefull distinction between route=foot
> and route=hiking, they don't have to be merged. However, that
> distinction could (as always) do with better documentation.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging