[Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

[Bryce Nesbitt]

One of the great things about OSM, is that it shows the informal social
trails, cut through routes and fence gaps.
One of the bad things about OSM, is that it shows the informal social
trails, cut through routes and fence gaps.

I've been mapping these highway=path, informal=yes.  I feel that *access=no*
is *inappropriate* in most cases,
as these trails are often fully legal to travel on and in many cases
tolerated by land managers (note 1).

However: I'm disturbed by the knowledge that when I map highway=path,
informal=yes the majority of the rendering tools will show it as a peer to
a highway=path, official=yes.  I often  try adding width=1 ft  or some
other indication of a lesser status: but that usually misses the point. The
trails are different *because* they are not created or maintained by the
land manager, not because of any true physical characteristic.

Thus, there's a rendering fix for this issue.  But quite frankly a totally
new highway
tag would be a very direct route to affecting the rendering nearly
everywhere.

   -Bryce



Note 1:
Many natural reserves allow cross country or off trail travel.

In some cases land managers would much rather you take the established
social trail to a given destination, rather than create new ones.  Example:
a social trail leading to a popular viewpoint rock.  Here having the route
in OSM can limit the social trail damage.

One exception is in certain desert landscapes, where land managers ask
groups and persons to spread out the
foot traffic impact.  Example: some cryptobiotic soil areas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160611/b6a1e762/attachment.html>