[Talk-GB] Advice please: Goat tracks in mountain areas

[nathan case]

Gruff,

In addition to the sac_scale tag, you may wish to add a suitable value for the hazard tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard There are also a bunch of undocumented values which might work for you: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=hazard#values

These secondary tags won't stop the path being rendered on the "standard" OSM page and possibly not in Strava either but at least the data is recorded if routers/renderers wanted to pay attention to it. (You could contact Strava and ask them not to render it.)

Also, a bit of a wider discussion, this has cropped up in the past but with no resolution. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dpath#highway.3Dpath_is_defined_too_broadly_and_it_is_now_resulting_in_unnecessary_Search_and_Rescue_calls

Thanks.



From: Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 05 February 2022 15:48
To: Talk-GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Advice please: Goat tracks in mountain areas


I don't know this path but if it's visible on the ground throughout, it should be mapped. I tend to use width=narrow for these sorts of paths which are very vague, and agree that sac_scale=difficult_mountain_hiking would indicate that it is not for casual hikers.

If on the other hand it disappears in the middle, don't map that bit.

bicycle=no and horse=no would mean that it is illegal for bikes and horses to use the path. I'm not sure what the rights are here, so not sure whether these should be used or not.

Nick


________________________________
From: Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk<mailto:phil at trigpoint.me.uk>>
Sent: 05 February 2022 15:37
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Advice please: Goat tracks in mountain areas

On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 15:04 +0000, David Woolley wrote:
> On 05/02/2022 14:26, Gruff Owen wrote:
> >
> > It has been tagged as:
> > bicycle:no
> > highway:path
> > horse:no
> >
>
> What would initially concern me is that bicycle=no and horse=no
> probably
> represent the mapper's view of its suitability, and are therefore
> very
> subjective, which is wrong.
>
> Not mapping it would be wrong.  The correct way is to provide
> attributes, e.g tracktype=Grade 5; surface=ground; width=70cm;
> smoothness=horrible; sac_scale=difficult_mountain_hiking, that allow
> a
> router to make its own judgements (although some of these could also
> be
> considered too subjective).  I'm not sure though, to what extent
> routers
> actually look for such contraindications, but there is a principle
> that
> you do not tag for the renderer, which means it is the router's job
> to
> assess suitability and one must not try to influence it by
> misdescriptions.
>
> Pyg Trail, to which this path is attached, is classified as
> sac_scale=mountain_hiking, in OSM, which is the second least onerous.
> The description for sac_scale says that paper maps often do not
> include
> paths with the most onerous values.
>
> Total omission doesn't work, if the feature is visible, because
> people
> will, eventually, remap it.
>
This sounds a good approach, although in my experience goat or sheep
tracks end up with a width more like a sunken 10cm path on a steep
slope where it becomes difficult to get one boot in front of the other.

Could be worth a changeset comment pointing out the problems with
mapping this type of path without careful tagging and determine
motivation/sources used.

Phil (trigpoint)

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-gb&data=04%7C01%7Cnick.whitelegg%40solent.ac.uk%7Cade7fa7b45634c00945808d9e8bdd249%7Cd684e4cd491a4577bf33546478d72e3c%7C0%7C0%7C637796724237862008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=b4Dp0asvrhJRJRQtHUWi8ZKSIgIMisME4BkHrB3SWNM%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220205/36d4ac4d/attachment.htm>