[Tagging] Walking route on a beach

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Thu Dec 20 06:34:52 UTC 2018

There are signposts on the beach only at the access ways. Makes no sense to
place further signs to follow a stretch of beach, so you wil not find
Trail_visibility: you could add that, but surface=sand on an area of sand
already says it it all. I've suggested this once on the dutch forum, and
the answer was: What do you mean, not visible? It's a perfectly visible
long and wide sandy path. Can't miss it even if you wanted to!


Op do 20 dec. 2018 om 01:05 schreef Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:27, Sergio Manzi <smz at smz.it> wrote:
> > Why don't you use trail_visibility=no on the sections of path which are
> invisible as they are just plain beach? Routing will not be affected (it
> will work...).
> I agree. I think trail_visibility=no + surface=sand (or whatever the
> beach surface) is essential so that data consumers know this is just
> walking on the beach and there is no special infrastructure there like
> a boardwalk.
> In my opinion, it would be better to not add the highway=footway
> unless it's market out with sign posts or something, ideally routing
> engines would be able to route across a beach area from footways that
> connect to either end, but most routing engines struggle with routing
> over areas.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181220/a9f6bc20/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list