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

[John Henderson]

Steve Bennett wrote:

> 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.

Yes, until we develop other national trails.

> I think we can do better.

I don't.

When the Bicentennial National Trail got named, the meaning of 
"national" was clearly understood.

It should have the same meaning in the expression "national walking 
network".  I see no compelling reason for it not to.

I see two arguments raised for relaxing the meaning of "national":

  . The number of NWNs and RWNs is out of balance, with there being many 
more RWNs than NWNs.

  . NWNs render at a lower zoom level than RWNs.

I reckon these arguments are trivial and inconsequential compared with 
confusion created by using the term "national" in some watered-down way.

> 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.

That's as comprehensible as something I'd write on a bad day :)

> 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.)

When it does get debated, bear in mind that the incentive to use a GPS 
unit for bush navigation is going to be greater in an area where track 
markers are not permitted.

John H