[talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
snowgum at gmx.com
Wed Feb 24 04:59:02 GMT 2010
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I think a little intuition can be a very dangerous thing. Remember,
> the name "national walking route" is a UK term, reflecting a
> particular way of administering trails by their government.
> Essentially I think we can treat these four levels as just four levels
> of significance to assign as we please, just as we have
Then our intuitions differ. Call it our "thinking" if you prefer that
term. Our own government's way of splitting up the country works just
fine with the OSM definitions.
For me, the demarcation problem is largely solved. NWNs (of which there
are two that I'm aware of) are clearly distinguished from RWNs.
Otherwise, what distinguishes a NWR from a RWN is a grey area indeed.
And any attempt to define what's what by fiat necessarily has a lot of
arbitrariness about it.
> The rule about crossing a state boundary...well, that will almost
> never happen. Same with bike paths, our state boundaries are all in
> the middle of nowhere. So that's just not useful.
I think it is useful. We're used to it with road networks, with
national routes and state routes. Sure, hiking trails are shorter, but
that doesn't mean it's unworkable.
> I originally put the Overland track as a RWN, then switched to NWN.
> One consequence of this it is shows up at lower zoom levels on
> lonvia's hiking map. Since there are so few long distance hiking
> trails in Australia (compared to, say, central europe), we should
> (IMHO) be fairly liberal with the higher designations, as there is no
> danger of overcrowding the map.
I'm not going to say anything about tagging for the r... (oops, nearly did).
I am, of course, prepared to be voted down. I too am just putting my
opinion into the debate.
More information about the Talk-au