[Talk-us-massachusetts] Trails: Path or Foot Path

[Greg Troxel]

Joseph Holmes <Joseph.Holmes at alum.mit.edu> writes:

> In Acton we have decided on standardizing so that all trails are
> tagged as highway=path. In some rare instances we use
> highway=track. All sidewalks are tagged as highway=footway and
> footway=sidewalk. In the rare instances where we have what seems like
> a sidewalk (not a trail), but is not associated with a road, then it
> is highway=footway without the footway=sidewalk.

That's certainly a reasonable approach (and perhaps the emerging
consensus), but the OP should know that the path/footway debate has been
raging for years without a conclusion.

As I understand it,

  highway=footway

is equivalent to

  highway=path foot=designated

and leaves bicycle/horse unspecified (and thus sort of yes) and both
have motor_vehicle=no.

The real issue is that renderers show highway=path with a lot of visual
weight, just below track, and highway=footway (or highway=footway
foot=designated) as red dots.  Really path and footway should look
almost the same.

The other real issue is that a sidewalk is a minor feature, which should
be shown only at high zoom levels.  But a trail through the woods should
be shown at a scale commensurate with its length and importance in the
trail network.  Which is hard to figure out.

In Stow I've been tending to highway=footway.

> Also we use the following tags on our trails:
> access=yes (if true, i.e. if it is a public trail)

> foot=designated (if true, so far true for all trails, but the future
> bike trails will be different)

I particularly agree with this.  In my view other than explicit bike
paths, trails are primarily for foot use, with other uses allowed.

> motor_vehicle=no (if true, some tracks are motor_vehicle=private)

OK, but that's implied by highway=path.   If it's a track, then this is
a real issue.

> name=Red (we put the color of the blazed trails in the name field,
> which allows us to display it in color. If unblazed, then no name. If
> the rare cases where the trail has a real name, then we use both the
> color and name. The displaying software will remove the color text)

I do this too, but I'm not thrilled, because it's abusing name to get it
to render.  There should be some sort of blaze color tag.  But until
then I also put color in the name.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 162 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20170527/a892fab7/attachment.sig>