[Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> My view on the way forward in this particular situation.
>
Agree with your general approach

>
> * Decide on reasonable tagging. Agree that some use of "access" seems most
> appropriate (maybe access=social?)
>
In deciding this we should ask what specifically is it that Caliparks
wishes to express about these trails? Is it that the public is prohibited
from using them, then access=no or access=official may be the way to go.
If they wish to discourage people from using them, then access=discouraged,
is it that these trails are not maintained by Caliparks, then perhaps some
tag like "operator=" (on the official trails) may be called for.


> * Discuss how to better represent these on main OSM rendering, and other
> rendering. They should be rendered, but look different from official trails.
>
+1  There are also trails and tracks within parks that no one really uses
except for perhaps for occasional official maintenance activities.  The
public is not prohibited from using them, they just don't typically use
them. They should be mapped for completeness, but currently they would
clutter and confuse, hence in my area I have refrained from mapping them.

>
> Beyond this, there's a huge opportunity and lots of interesting issues
> regarding mapping in parks. Imagine a single map of every park in the US,
> or in the world. There's a lot to get into about how park managers and the
> public see parks, park data and park maps. Think OSM is the best place to
> do it!
>
+1

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160324/84a42b5a/attachment.html>