[Tagging] Changeset 62867521

Mike Thompson miketho16 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 8 16:46:27 UTC 2019

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:37 PM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment.
Thanks for commenting.

> Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be
Agree.  It will also show up on official park maps, and possibly in
official park GIS data.

> and potentially part of a hiking route,
Agree, but we don't have many official "hiking routes" in this area.

> and an "informal" route won't be signposted an not part of a hiking
route, is that your view too?
Agree generally.

> In that case for the "official" one I'd use foot=designated and make it
part of the route=hiking relation, and foot=yes for the informal one. This
matches the definitions of =yes and =designated at
I wouldn't be opposed to such tagging.    However, there are many official
trails in this area, and no trail is not officially preferred/designated
over other official trails for foot use.

> I agree it's best to use a barrier=* tag on the node instead of
disconnecting the ways, as that barrier might only block motor_vehicles,
not foot access, which the barrier can be tagged as such.
The "barrier" in question is probably meant to keep casual hikers from
inadvertently taking the Fire Trail.  Motor vehicles are not allowed on
trails in the park.  Nevertheless, I agree with your recommendation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191108/3d61257d/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list