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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 22:22:57 UTC 2016


On 6/13/2016 10:23 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> John Willis <johnw at mac.com> writes:
>
> [dropping things replied to already]
>
>> On Jun 13, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>>>> Subkey:
>>>> Trail=main (usually there is some backbone path that all trails branch out from in a large park.)
>>>> Trail=official (officially designated trails in a park, where that matters)
>>> I agree there should be some tag to show that a trail/path is the main
>>> one.
>>>
>>> I don't think official/not-official should be related to main/not.
>> I was thinking like, in a large natural preserve/park, there is a loop path or major point-to-point path that is the busiest/emphasized.
>>
>> Maybe you are trying to say we should be able to tag both values simultaneously?
> Yes.  That's all I meant.   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, so we can record each aspect or reality separately and
> not get into trouble when there is some way of doing things that we
> haven't encountered before.

As a mapper .. how do I tell?

What is the difference between 'main' or 'minor' .. if it iw width/surface/roughness then use those tags. If it is traffic .. OSM does not have a tag for that.. and that would be so variable that it would be problematic to tag.

Official/not I cannot judge from the track. Anything that is 'there' could be said to be condoned untill there is a sign to say it is not. Then I can tag access=no or whatever the sign indicates.

>
>>>> Trail=unofficial / social (shortcuts in a park or a city)
>>> trail:official=no seems fine for any trail which is not sanctioned by
>>> the authorities.  (I don't see why you say park or city; anyplace there
>>> is a notion that some places are official then others can be not.)
>> If people know this is a shortcut footpath that is not normal (that
>> footpath along a fence that bypasses a longer route on an official
>> sidewalk) then saying it is "informal" or "social" or something would
>> be good. Otherwise it would be =yes.
> I don't like the word 'social'; that isn't in use around here.
>
> 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 are multiple kinds of these.
> There are shortcuts as you say, which could be labeled shortcut.  There
> are non-official access trails into conservation land.  There are other
> non-official trails in conservation land.
>
>>>> Trail=illegal (social cuts that exist but are specifically illegal
>>>> because of posted signage to stay on official trails, or ones that are
>>>> go into an area signed as "do not enter".
>>> This feels like osm veering into judgement; that sounds like a simple
>>> case of access=no.
>> I think this should only be used sparingly, where it is *explicity*
>> signed - similar to a driveway that says "emergency access only" - it
>> is explicit.
>> Many parks have official trails mapped, and where a social trail
>> branches off, they put a sign there that says "do not enter/sensitive
>> area" or similar - that is very very explicit. I agree it is good to
>> know for orienteering to know you have reached that point. If a
>> rendered map chooses to leave them off, okay - but it is good to have
>> the way in the dataset so it isn't added incorrectly in the future.
> It seems fine to put the sign in the db, or a tag like
>
> access_no=regulation
> access_no=posted
>
> to record the reason for the access=no.

errr

source:access=regulation

source:access=local sign

would be consistent with present OSM tags.

>   I am always trying to think
> about data consumers that don't know about the latest tagging schemes,
> so if something is a subcategory of access, or a subcategory of trail, I
> think it's good to keep them tagged in a way that one gets sensible results.
>
> 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.
>
>> Just as OSM shows motorways down to driveway parking isles and rocky
>> unmaintained tracks with so many different highway values, I am
>> interested in showing - via tags and rendering - the different levels
>> of non-car walking ways, from a wide and leisurely "path" in a city
>> park, a sidewalk along a road, a social trail through the weeds along
>> the top of a river retaining berm, and a signed and maintained hiking
>> trail of various grades and quality in a natural park.
> I agree with your goals here.   But, I think it's messier, because the
> road hierarchy of primary/secondary is about importance, not physical.
> I was just on an A road in Scotland, which was single-track but at least
> had passing places.  Still, it was the main road.
>
>> If we can't go beyond =path and =footpath, we need some kind of subkey
> I think we can't :-(
>
>> value or colon separated value to do it, and not rely on surface or
>> wheelchair accessibility tags to imply it - it should be as explicit
>> as a driveway or a grade3 track.
> Agreed.  I think we need tags that are about
>
>    the overall experience of traversing the trail
>
> and separately
>
>    how important the trail is in the local trail network
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160614/96e8ae4c/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list