[Tagging] Animal trails

[Warin]

On 1/12/20 11:06 am, Casper Van Battum wrote:
> I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the 
> sense that the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on 
> the trails. I'm guessing it's either protected land or private 
> property these trails are on. Since the organization mentioned they 
> didn't want to put up "no access" signs, it would be appropriate to 
> map the paths as such.
>
> However I'm with you on that this brings us no closer to a general 
> solution for tagging animal paths, that applies even beyond this 
> specific situation.
>
> The big question is: what distinguishes an animal path from a human 
> path? Animals use human paths, and in numerous cases humans use animal 
> paths. It would be hard to define it.


Animals come in different sizes.

A pad made by wild horses have sufficient height and width that most 
hikers could use them, this they can get muddy or steep in certain places.

A pad made by wombats can go under plants that would have humans 
crawling on their stomachs not just on their hands and knees.

> We generally follow the guidelines to tag highways according to their 
> usage (see tracks vs roads for example). Currently highway=path  is 
> defined as "generic path, multi-usage or unspecified usage" and animal 
> paths do already fit that description. We could define animal paths as 
> "generic path, used mainly by animals" but I suppose it should be a 
> specific kind of path (something along the lines of 
> highway=path+animal=yes) rather than a new type of highway. But again, 
> is this enough of a distinction to merit its own tagging scheme?
>

I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess! 
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example 
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging 
that... terrible.


> Cheers, Casper
> On 1 Dec 2020, at 00:47, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com 
> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert
>     <lrichert at posteo.net <mailto:lrichert at posteo.net>>:
>
>         I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many
>         trails in my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom
>         used by people - but it is allowed for people to walk on these
>         and they are sometimes significant shortcuts so allowing
>         routing over them in some cases would be good.
>
>
>     +1
>
>     After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I
>     believe that they mostly do not apply to the situation here.
>     People were mainly concerned about wildlife protection, and
>     Belgian cows are not falling under my idea of "wildlife".
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201201/066a2885/attachment.htm>