[Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun May 24 00:01:58 UTC 2020
As it is the minimum width that will limit passage, I would prefer to
see the minimum with tagged not the average width.
On 23/5/20 3:23 am, Daniel Westergren wrote:
>
> In the short term, it's okay to tag an estimated, average width.
> If it's 1 to 0.3 meters, use 0.5 - this still shows a difference
> from a path which is 1.5 to 4 meters wide (which you might
> estimate as 2.5 meters?).
>
>
> Perhaps it could be added to the
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath that width is
> for the tread on the ground and that for sections that vary in width,
> break them down or estimate an average width? Then it will be more
> clear for mappers who are reading about how to use width for
> highway=path particularly.
>
> I would also suggest that smoothness is added in the Tagging section
> of that page, as it's very helpful when smoothness for a path is
> added. For now, it's only in the "Useful combination" section and may
> be missed by many. And by the way, for StreetComplete it's now being
> discussed to filter for only highway=path|track that either has a
> smoothness tag with a value of bad or worse, or surface=ground or
> equivalent, when asking for MTB difficulty.
>
> And lastly, what if something is also added for surface, to describe
> why it's an important tag to distinguish different kinds of paths from
> each other?
>
> /Daniel
>
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:22 AM Jake Edmonds via Tagging
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>
> I’m going to throw this in rather randomly but the reason i
> don’t tag width and surface is that the footpaths I’m mapping
> vary widely. Getting wider and thinner and going from gravel
> to dirt to sections with many trees roots. Plus the surface
> tag is rather subjective.
>
> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>
>> On 22 May 2020, at 17:48, Daniel Westergren <westis at gmail.com
>> <mailto:westis at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I think in terms of tagging we don't get further in
>> this discussion. But it has been very valuable to me. I've
>> done a couple of video tutorials about the basics of mapping
>> trails in OSM and the next one will be about what tags to use
>> and why.
>>
>> They are in Swedish, but I'm planning to do English versions
>> later as well. It's probably been done before, but I guess we
>> need to use different ways in this widespread community to
>> reach mappers to get more useful data to work with.
>>
>> And regarding rendering of surface... Yeah, both an advantage
>> and disadvantage of OSM is its diversity. What for many
>> sounds like the only logical way may conflict with the views
>> of others.
>>
>> Great work with your rendering btw! I'd love to discuss more
>> about that outside of this mailing list, as I'm also helping
>> out with creating a custom rendering for trail running
>> purposes. OpenStreetMap is indeed very urban-centred still,
>> which brings me back to my opening lines of this thread, that
>> OSM hasn't caught up with how lots of people actually are
>> using it now, like routing and rendering for hiking, cycling
>> and running, areas where Google Maps etc. are and will
>> continue to be way behind.
>>
>> Thanks for valuable input!!
>>
>> /Daniel
>>
>> Den fre 22 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Andy Townsend
>> <ajt1047 at gmail.com <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> On 22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote:
>> > And there actually seems to be a pull request finally
>> solving the
>> > paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!?
>> >
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137
>> >
>> > If that makes it to the default map it will certainly
>> help people to
>> > tag surface, because they will see that it makes sense.
>> >
>> >
>> I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound like it, but this
>> does read
>> somewhat as if rendering "surface" on paths is somehow
>> "obvious" and
>> "easy", and it's an "oversight" that the OSM Carto folks
>> haven't been
>> doing it since basically forever.
>>
>> It's not - I think that pnorman's comment of
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399#issuecomment-596656115
>>
>> still applies:
>>
>> > I'm of the opinion that the only way we can get the
>> cartographic
>> "space" to render unpaved surfaces is to drop something
>> else, like
>> access restriction rendering.
>>
>> I think that there's another problem with the standard
>> style as well -
>> aside from surface rendering it's hugely biased towards
>> urban centres.
>> Looking at
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856 you
>> can't see any paths at all at that zoom level due to the
>> "Central
>> European Graveyard problem" - compare with
>> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13&lat=53.9006&lon=-0.8795
>>
>> to see what you're missing.
>>
>> What we need are concrete suggestions of how to get there
>> from here,
>> (and Ture Pålsson's mail of
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-May/052747.html
>>
>> is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for).
>>
>> Adding a sane surface rendering in addition to everything
>> else is hard -
>> I've not managed it across the board at
>> https://map.atownsend.org.uk
>> although that is influenced by sac_scale,
>> trail_visibility and width.
>> All suggestions gratefully received, but what's needed
>> some code that
>> people can play with and see what the effect is on
>> various areas and
>> different zoom levels - not just emails to the tagging list*.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> * yes, I do realise the irony of "yet another email to
>> the tagging list"!
>>
>> 75 Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
>> 58 Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
>> 49 RFC ele:regional
>> 42 relations & paths
>> 35 Doorzone bicycle lanes
>> 34 Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email
>> 28 Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route
>> relation roles
>> 27 Reviving the path discussion - the increasing
>> importance of
>> trails in OSM
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200524/0432c8a5/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list