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

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 01:22, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> ha scritto:
>> 
>> I agree there should be some tag to show that a trail/path is the main
>> one.
>
> do we need a tag, or is it evident by the routes that use the ways?

I think we need a tag.

There are certainly a few routes that go long distances over multiple
trails, but around me that's the exception.  A typical example is a 250
acre (100 ha) conservation area with a main loop trail, a few access
trails from parking areas at the edges, one or two connecting trails
across, and then a number of trails that are definitely lesser.  It is
true that the lesser ones tend to be unblazed.

I see this as sort of similar to
highway=primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified in the trail network.
We tag width, surface and speed, so in some sense the classification is
not necesssary.  But it's an important clue about main-ness.  There is
no authority that designates them that way, but in any local area there
is usually a concept of which trails are higher rank.

This is related to the official/informal issue, but I think it's
separate.  What I was trying to say earlier to John Willis is that we
have several sets of properties

  official or not (maintained/suggested by property owner/manager)

  main or not (place in the hierarchy really)

  blazed or not

  whether or not people are prohibited from non-official trails

and now you correctly add to that list

  is the trail part of a named/numbered route

I think it's better to use one tag for each fact, rather than to trying
to group properties into names that imply several of these at once.  I
believe, without enough evidence, that the customs of how these facts
relate to each other vary by region and probably even locally.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160613/80482bea/attachment.sig>