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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Jun 12 21:38:35 UTC 2016


On 6/12/2016 3:43 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> 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.

+1
>
> 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.

And that would make more problems .. the same as the conflict between 
highway=path and highway=footway

-1

Making more tags to 'solve' a rendering issue may only result in the 
renders resolving the new tag teh same as the previous tag, despite the 
best efforts of tag definitions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160613/89cfbb46/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list