[Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

Tod Fitch tod at fitchfamily.org
Tue Jun 2 14:51:34 UTC 2020

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren <westis at gmail.com <mailto:westis at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag according to function.   A trail/path can have many users/functions, but it's still a dirt path.
> Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?
> No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock of "path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add additional confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers and routers
> Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that will tell what this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?
> We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the necessary tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in use.and we need to reamin backaward compatible in view of the enourmous numbers). What we can do and need to do is to improve the description of the various existing tagging options in the wiki (without touching their definition)

My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t change any tagging”. I don’t find that helpful.

> I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the google docs doc.
> Ok, I'll email those who have expressed interest in following or participating in the discussion. Suggestions and comments can also be done in the Google Doc.
> As said before I would prefer that his discussion remain on one of the tools of the OSM community, mainly for documenting the discussion.

I agree with you on this. Especially as I’ve gone to fairly extreme measures to reduce my exposure to Google.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200602/bf5e5c3b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200602/bf5e5c3b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Tagging mailing list