[Tagging] Animal trails

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Nov 30 23:58:55 UTC 2020

On 1/12/20 10:36 am, Lukas Richert wrote:
> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in 
> my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but 
> it is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes 
> significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases 
> would be good. However, they should be lower priority than real paths.
> - Lukas
> On 30.11.20 23:06, Paul Allen wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
>> <zelonewolf at gmail.com <mailto:zelonewolf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things
>>     related to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. 
>>     Perhaps a combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what
>>     we're describing?
>>  Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.
>> -- 

I think these are called 'animal pads'? They are usefull for hiking 
where no other path exists as they avoid further damage to vegetation 
and damage to pants/gaiters/shoes. They do also lead hikers astray by 
leading away from the path that they should use. Possibly highway=pad or 

The tags 'note' and 'comment' are for mappers and not usually used by 
renders, using the tag 'description' may be more helpful?

The tag 'access' should be used where access is restricted within OSM. I 
don't think it is necessary to have signage on the ground to apply 
access tags that are 'community standard' e.g. most home driveways in 
Australia would be regarded as access=private and should be tagged as 
such within OSM despite there being no sign on every home driveway.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201201/d731156b/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list