[talk-au] Australian bushwalking tracks

Evan Sebire evan at sebire.org
Mon Sep 21 11:08:02 BST 2009


We should emphasis tagging properties and not uses.  This is what that well 
worn path demonstrates to me, obviously some people think the path is 
traverse-able or it would not be worn!

Tags I typically use are, highway = path, sac_scale, trail_visibility, 
surface, width.  Only on a legal basis I use the no tag (eg bicycle=no).

I personally think, highway=footway,cycleway,bridleway should not be in-use.

Evan


On Monday 21 Sep 2009 11:07:29 Liz wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, swanilli wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Quite simply, don't worry about the schemes dreamed up by the Eurocentric
> majority.
> Consider exactly how we use the language and what we mean by a "track" and
>  a "path".
> We are more adventurous with where we take our cars and MTBs compared to
>  the people who wrote the wiki pages
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Jena_Track_roots.jpg
> which is marked as "impassable" and even an aged female cyclist myself
>  would tackle that track up or downhill unless it was wet.
> 
> So consider any further advice on how Australians would tag for the
>  conditions that comes from here, ask yourself how an Australian
>  bushwalking group would grade tracks and mark them accordingly.
> Edit 'our' section of the wiki to suit the consensus opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 




More information about the Talk-au mailing list