[talk-au] Australian bushwalking tracks

[swanilli]

I posted the following to OSM-newbies a week back but have had no
feedback. Any thoughts here?

	
I would like some consensus on the tagging of Australian bushwalking
tracks. Specifically, I am interested in unformed ways that are
unsuitable for all but the most courageous/insane cyclists. They are
typically just a worn path through bush. In some places (e.g. Royal
National Park (RNP)) they are designated as cycling prohibited (see
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NationalParks/parkCycling.aspx?id=N0030)
a way on which cycling is permitted is referred to as a trail and one
for walkers only, as a track. The RNP naming is inconsistent and these
designations do not match OSM nomenclature.

The OSM Australian Tagging Guidelines
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines)
deals with cycling comprehensively (indeed, it seems biased that way)
but is silent on this point except for suggesting that an "Australian
footpath" be tagged as highway=footway with "bicycle=no if unsuitable
for bikes". While this might seem to address the issue, it is
inconsistent with the general OSM guidance
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway) which
clearly illustrates an urban, paved footpath. This is consistent with
the Australian usage of the term footpath as the Macquarie dictionary
defines a foot path as "a path for pedestrians only, especially one at
the side of a road or street."

Given this inconsistency, I have been tagging fire trails and the like
(I ask myself if they are suitable for 4WD) as highway=track and
bushwalking tracks as highway=path.