[Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path
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.
> 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
> 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
And that would make more problems .. the same as the conflict between
highway=path and highway=footway
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...
More information about the Tagging