[Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

s8evq s8evq at runbox.com
Thu Aug 15 11:42:09 UTC 2019

I have added both comments in the temporary wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_scheme_hiking_walking?

For me, the distinction between route=foot and route=hiking is not that important. I agree with Peter Elderson that we have many tags in OSM that help somebody decide how to classify the route (ascent, distance, surface, sac_scale, trail_visibility, tracktype,...). Is it a walking route or hiking route is subjective, personal and probably also depends on the language used. The tags we have are more objective. Furthermore, as far as I know, no data consumer makes a difference between the two. The situation is that we currently have both in OSM: we can try to find a reasonable definition for both, but it's not my main focus. Although I want to add that I truly appreciate the effort of others to come to a conclusion on this. 

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 13:21:27 +0100, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 10:56, s8evq <s8evq at runbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1) Remove the wording "(optional)" in front of the explanation of some
> > keys. What's the function of adding (optional) in front of tags that are in
> > the Useful section of the table? Isn't every tag that is not in Required
> > optional by default?
> >
> It helps newbies.  Newbies have to start somewhere, and adding a
> walking/hiking route
> might be the first thing somebody tries and doesn't read any other
> documentation first.
> At least consider a sentence under the heading "Useful" explaining that
> those tags
> are optional.  Not strictly needed, but I'm remembering my early days with
> OSM and
> trying to make sense of it without getting lost in a twisty maze of wiki
> pages, all
> different.
> To do
> > 1) Explanation route=hiking / route=foot is merely a copy paste at the
> > moment. Should be cleaned out and clarified
> >
> One distinction I saw (I have no idea where) is that it influences the type
> of footwear needed.
> Walking shoes (at a pinch, even ordinary shoes) are adequate for a walking
> trail but a
> hiking trail needs walking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks
> and/or heavy
> undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow
> streams.
> Yes, that definition seems to be putting the cart before the horse, but
> follow it backwards.
> If the map says it's a walking route you can get away with walking shoes or
> even
> ordinary shoes; if the map says it's a hiking route then you need hiking
> boots.  And that
> is the reason for the map making a distinction in the first place, so you
> know what type
> of equipment you need.
> -- 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list