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

Tod Fitch tod at fitchfamily.org
Sat May 30 14:30:04 UTC 2020


> On May 30, 2020, at 6:46 AM, Daniel Westergren <westis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, I hope this will be my final post in this long thread. I will try to summarize what I understand from the discussion as the main issuesa and what needs to be addressed to make it easier for mappers and data consumers.
> 
> I would also suggest that instead of filling the inboxes of each and everyone on this tagging list, we create a smaller "working group" that can come up with a concrete suggestion to solve the major issues. What do you think about that? Who would like to work with such a proposal?
> 
> Major issues, as I understand it:
> How do we treat highway=path and highway=footway that has no additional tags?
> Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we use) or a way for non-specified/mixed use? That is, are we talking about the physical characteristics of a way or its function? Btw, this would likely mean that 99 % of path/footway/cycleway in Sweden should be path, if the latter interpretation is to be used.
> #1 & #2 makes it really difficult for data consumers, they have to depend on (often non-existing) subtags.
> Additional tags must be used to denote accessibility for pedestrians/cyclists of ordinary ability, that is "this is NOT a hiking trail/wilderness trail!. But which would these tags be?
> Additional tags must also be used to tell !this IS a wilderness trail! (or whatever term we use).
> 
> Subtags
> To specify the physical characteristics of a highway=path or highway=footway we have a multitude of tags, with no particular recommendation about which ones must or should be used (see #4 & #5 above): surface, smoothness, width, trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and possibly incline.
> 
> 
> An additional issue:
> 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with mtb:scale) to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not the route). But it's very geared towards alpine trails and there is not enough nuance in the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), Australian Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on sac_scale?
> 
> 
> What needs to be done?
> We have to rely on subtags...
> We need to decide what subtags to be used to tell this is an accessible path or this is a wilderness trail.
> We need a way to better nuance hiking trails.
> Documention needs to be much more clear and specific, in order for mappers and data consumers to really know when different kinds of highway tags should be used and what subtags must/should be used.
> Editors need to be improved to encourage tagging that will make it easier for data consumers.
> Better default rendering of non-urban paths, to encourage the use of mentioned subtags.
> 
> Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interestet in continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this mailing list?
> 
> /Daniel
> 

This seems to be an accurate summary of the discussion so far.

As a hiker who both maps and renders maps for hiking, I am interested in getting this area of tagging improved and would be willing to exchange emails among a smaller group.

Thank you for the summary!

Tod


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200530/c0c3f20d/attachment-0001.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/20200530/c0c3f20d/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the Tagging mailing list