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

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 16 19:00:32 UTC 2019

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 19:43, s8evq <s8evq at runbox.com> wrote:

> [1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in order
> to map it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a named hiking route
> is sufficient to be mapped]

Does it have to be signposted as a walking route?  I know of several
organized by
a nearby walking group that have put together walks from an assemblage of
footpaths or bridleways (signed as public footpaths or bridleways) linked
by short
segments of road.  They have an on-line presence which describes some of
walks.  They also occasionally arrange for the members to meet up to walk
along one of those routes.

Obviously, the route has to be described somewhere, but does it really need
to be
marked as such before we can map it?  I suspect some of the "official"
routes publicised by county councils around here are not explicitly marked

[4] [ I would like to add this sentence: "If possible, sort the ways in a
> logical order"]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure "logical" clarifies
anything.  The
explanation at
manages without it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190816/8fbe4694/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list