[talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 14:37:35 GMT 2010


On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Henderson <snowgum at gmx.com> wrote:
> 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.

Just so we're on the same page, I understand you as proposing that we
use NWN for the AAWT and the BNT, and nothing else. Zero IWT, two NWN,
lots of RWN and LWN. I think we can do better.

>> 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 won't say anything about how it's valid to use current renderer
practice to inform the use of tags in the absence of anything more
authoritative, until now.

>But is it a wilderness area, where route markers are prohibited?

Dunno. I suspect it's fairly well trafficked anyway.

>They'd obviously gravitate towards the route showing on the GPS in their hand.

This is pretty much OT, but from the few people I've talked to,
following a GPS while on this kind of trek is not yet standard
practice. And I really think we can cross the bridge of harm caused by
OSM data when we get to it... (By which I mean, sure, interesting
topic for discussion, I just don't want to debate it here.)

Steve




More information about the Talk-au mailing list