[Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM
Mateusz Konieczny
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Thu May 21 09:05:25 UTC 2020
May 21, 2020, 09:21 by westis at gmail.com:
> OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest).
>
Not really relevant and depends on a location.
> But the default rendering doesn't differentiate between a forest or mountain path and a paved, combined foot- and cycleway in an urban environment.
>
Default rendering is offtopic here. BTW it distinguishes between paved and unpaved paths.
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/ is a better place for discussing it
(and yes, path rendering is substandard with issues opened and waiting for a better code)
> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering is discussed elsewhere.
>
Then why you mention it?
> But has there been any fruitful discussing on this topic that will help users to tag these clearly extremely different kinds of "paths" in a way that make them more useful for data consumers, as well as easier to differentiate for renderers?
>
There was plenty of discussion, if someone is interested then improving and expanding
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
is likely a good idea.
I just added there link to an excellent post by Ture Pålsson.
> Sure, tags like surface, width, trail_visibility can be used. But in most cases, highway=path is used with no additional tag.
>
Or using StreetComplete Android app in your area, among included quests there
is one asking about surface for paths where it is missing (if you are interested in just this,
you can change quest order in settings)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200521/ffe7a25d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list