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

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/05/2020 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
> Similarly anyone creating
> highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes"
> should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or other less 
> harmful activity.
>
While "danger" isn't a much used tag (and I'm sure wasn't a serious 
suggestion here - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/danger#values 
), sometimes "foot=yes" is correct and other tags need to be taken into 
account.  I've used the area around 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431056034 as an example of that 
before.  Here "foot=yes" is correct - there is a legal right of access.  
"sac_scale <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac 
scale?uselang=en-GB>=demanding_alpine_hiking" also makes sense here I think.

I take Frederik's reference to Andy Allan's point about "a 
multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering anything 
with a highway tag the same as their most minor road style" but frankly 
there's simply no solution to that - presumably "highway=dangerouspath" 
(to make up a nonsensical value) or 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=via%20ferrata would still 
get shown as a "road".

Map styles need to be clear about what they're showing and what they're 
not showing and people using maps need to be able to read maps so that 
they understand what they're being told.  This isn't really a tagging 
issue, unless OSM mappers aren't using appropriate other tags when they 
should (sac_scale, trail_visibility, surface, etc.)

Best Regards,

Andy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200521/91a6fcff/attachment.htm>