[Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes
pla16021 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 14 23:37:38 UTC 2019
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 00:13, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
One hiking trail I know of the locals usually go bare foot, not only
> because of poverty but also terrain.
> So the foot ware would be a guide, not a rule.
> Are all foot routes paved? I would think so.
Around my town there are several footpaths that are paved. But they're not
just short cuts between locations. Pretty much indistinguishable from a
sidewalk apart from
not being at the side of a road.
Around the outskirts of my town there are also several footpaths which, at
least in part, go
across fields. Again, not walking routes, just short cuts. They could
probably be incorporated
into walking routes but, as far as I know, nobody has done so.
Then there are footpaths which are part of walking routes. Usually
unpaved, cutting across fields
or through woods. And then there are hiking routes where the surface is
uneven, or stony, or
boggy, or you have to ford through a stream.
Hiking route may have sections that are 'paved', mainly to prevent damage
> to the environment.
True. Some of the walking and hiking routes I know of have a section, or
sections, along a road.
But you choose footwear for the worst conditions you'll encounter on the
route, not the best.
Going by the footwear was only a rule of thumb, but it seems like a useful
one. There are going
to be exceptions, but if you need hiking boots, and even fit people need a
walking stick to keep
their balance, it's better to call it a hiking route than a walking route.
Similarly, if you could do it
wearing slippers without any discomfort or getting wet feet, it's probably
a walking route. It
seems like useful guidance to mappers rather than not defining any
distinction at all. But
maybe somebody can come up with something better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging