[talk-au] Highway=path

[David Clark]

I probably should clarify, I'm really talking about paths that have
been tagged highway=path without including any other tags. I'm sure
with a bit of direction and encouragement people would include the
surface="what ever it is" tag.

If the mapper doesn't know the surface, then fair enough, leave it out.
But I think more often than not the mapper probably would know at least
enough to tag it "paved" or "dirt". It's a case of mapping what is
physically there, a rocky, rooty bushwalking trail for example should
be tagged differently to a concrete path that parents push a kiddies
pram along.

All the best,
David

----- Original message -----
From: David Clark <[1]dbclark at fastmail.com.au>
To: [2]talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Highway=path
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:45:55 +0930

I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started
doing my own rendering for gps. From this I've gained a new insight
into the highway=path tag so am posting here.

Firstly my focus is on tracks and trails so that is where I'm coming
from.

The basics of what I have noticed is that a lot ways are tagged
highway=path with no other information. I have found this to be a
difficult problem when it comes to rendering. The highway=path tag is a
little different to the other highway tags. Firstly it covers quite a
broad range of features for walking, cycling, horse riding. Secondly it
has no default surface type. For example roads default is paved unless
otherwise specified, highway=track defaults to unpaved. Highway=path
doesn't have a default.

Before messing around with rendering I would tag as highway=path and
not bother too much with the other assortment of tags. Partly this is
because there are heaps of tags that can be used and there was no
particular direction on their priority or importance of use.

For rendering I really need a surface tag included to separate the
paths into practical catagories. Having no surface tag results in such
a large mix of data that it becomes impractial to define any further.
However if the surface=paved,dirt.. whatever is used the usefulness of
the data is massively increased. For rendering I (and other examples of
rendering I have seen) use the highway=path, surface=paved,dirt..etc
tag to split the data into paths that are paved and paths that are not
paved. This results in a practical ability to split surfaced paths
(butumen, cement, pavers etc) and trails (gravel, dirt etc).

I'd like to see the difference between:

walking trails, dirt trails, single track etc.
and
paved paths, bitumen paths, concrete paths etc.

And I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

So in summary:
highway=path is a unique tag because it covers a broader range of
features than most tags.
highway=path has no surface default like most other way tags do.
adding the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc adds a much need qualifier for
pratical rendering.

My request:

Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as
well. You probably already know the surface (as I always did even
though I didn't realise the significance of adding the tag) and if
you're interested in paths your likely one of those most interested in
having it rendered in a practical way.

Secondly I think this is worth adding to the Australian Tagging
Guidelines wiki in some form. ie "Please add the
surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc when tagging paths. Preferred minimum
being paved or dirt."

What do you think?

All the best,
David
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[3]Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
[4]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

References

1. mailto:dbclark at fastmail.com.au
2. mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org
3. mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
4. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20140603/7ac43eb6/attachment.html>