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

[s8evq]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:00:32 +0100, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?  


In my opinion yes. It's an objective fact, visible on the ground, and can be verified.
Let's put it otherwise: "Besides signs and trail markers, what other facts or properties of the route would you consider sufficient in order to map the route"?

One example: My running club has also a group of people who go on a walk together, every Wednesday. They have been doing the same 5km route for the last 7 or 8 years. Should that be mapped? It's not indicated, not written down, just common knowledge among club members. My feeling tells me something like that shouldn't be in OSM.

Another example: there are lot's of walks in small nature reserves in my region. They are published online, as a PDF containing a small map of the nature reserve. The routes are also indicated on an information board with a map. (for example https://www.westtoer.be/sites/westtoer_2015/files/styles/route_main_image_desktop/public/win_synced_photos/natuurpunt_wandelingen_damme-52909-0.jpg)
Would you map this? ...And then there's also copyright restrictions to consider.


> > [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
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters
> manages without it.

Thanks for pointing out that link. I'll use it in the text and adjust the current text.