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

[Daniel Westergren]

> Would it be wrong to set sac_scale=hiking on an urban footway? I’m worried
> that we’ll get highway=path, foot=designated, cycle=designated,
> surface=paved, width=2.5, lit=yes, rubbish_bins_every=100m,
> sac_scale=hiking.
>

Same with mtb:scale.

A footway or cycleway should, in my opinion, never have sac_scale or
mtb:scale, unless we introduce explicit values like sac_scale=no and
mtb:scale=no. If it has sac_scale=hiking or above, or mtb:scale=0 or above
(remember, mtb:scale is based on the *Singletrail *Scale and even a value
of 0 should only be used for a singletrail), then it's not a footway or
cycleway, but a path. And if it has a sac_scale or mtb:scale value, then we
should already tell by that, that it's not accessible to everyone.

And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because then
it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway.

But again, with the current use of highway=path it can be and is used for
anything. That's why depend on subtags (trolltags) and that's what we need
to get away from.

So yes, if we could separate footway, cycleway and path clearly from each
other, then we can know that a path is always (if it's used correctly) used
for unpaved paths that may not be accessible to people of all abilities.

As for "hiking paths", it's also a word that confuses me. I think we're
here talking about the way (that has certain physical characteristics), not
the route, however people may use them (anyone can hike on a path, whether
it's part of a route or not). And if we can't organize paths hierarchically
like roads, then also context becomes irrelevant when separating footway
and cycleway from path.

/Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200527/371dae51/attachment.htm>