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

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 16:59:13 UTC 2016


I also think an official top level tag is needed to differentiate between
footways and hiking trails, e.g., highway=trail. IMO, the issues of
importance, access, as well as rendering, will all need to be worked out
after this critical decision has been made. I don't believe a second-level
footway=sidewalk will suffice for this distinction either. Are we to
presume that if it's missing we're looking at a hiking trail? There are
already ~5400 uses of highway=trail in OSM but the definition needs to be
nailed down and added to the Wiki. Many of the ways tagged highway=trail
are probably derived from old highly inaccurate Tiger data in the U.S. but
the word "trail" in that dataset was used intentionally.

My 2 cents

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 14:23, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> ha
> scritto:
> >   It could be that the trail everybody thinks
> > is main is not official.   And non-main trails may be official and may
> > be not-official.  So I would like to see one tag for official/not and
> > one for main/not
>
>
> can you give a definition of main/not? Is this about the amount of people
> that take a certain path? Or about the things I can find along? Or?
> Is this binary or can there be intermediate levels of "main-ness"?
>
>
> >
> > Again I would like to see the primary semantics be clear first, and then
> > finer points.  If a path is not sanctioned/maintained by the
> > authorities, then it's official=no.
>
>
> there might be official paths that aren't maintained. I prefer to stick to
> the established key informal: if it is not built or signposted but
> developed out of common/spontaneous use, it's informal.
> "official" is currently used less than 80 times and would not add anything
> (IMHO) that informal doesn't catch
>
>
> >
> > access_no=regulation
> > access_no=posted
> >
> > to record the reason for the access=no.
>
>
> I suggest source:access for these, like we do with maxspeed.
>
>
>
> >
> > What I was really objecting to is 'illegal'.  What's law, what's
> > landowner rules, what's conservation commission regulation is all messy.
> > So I'd like to see a more detached characterization of reality.
>
>
> +1
>
>
> >
> > I agree with your goals here.   But, I think it's messier, because the
> > road hierarchy of primary/secondary is about importance, not physical.
>
>
> +1, partly the definition is legal (e.g. motorway). There are also some
> significant differences between roads and paths (e.g. there is no give way
> on paths, it is less clear which one is main and which is less)
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160613/67fdb5c2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list