[Talk-us] trail tagging
Rihards
richlv at nakts.net
Fri Apr 19 19:11:58 UTC 2019
On 19.04.19 17:59, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I hadn’t looked at that page in a while, but I’ve been using
> highway=path in the same way as you describe. Hiking trails, singletrack
> MTB. Footway I only tag in built up areas.
> What do other places in the world do?
UK terminology has a well-established "footway" definition, which also
includes minor, barely visible trails across fields and so on.
With OSM originating in the UK and using (mostly) British English for
tagging and related things, the highway=footway was initially used for
all kinds of pedestrian trails - across fields, very well paved trails etc.
The the rest of the Europe (generalising) jumped in, and split this into
highway=footway for designed, well visible and mostly paved ways - and
highway=path, which got used more for paths in forests, across grassy
areas in cities etc.
Very roughly how I tag these things, having surveyed and mapped in quite
a few countries:
* unpaved pedestrian trails - highway=path (but I wouldn't change such a
trail from footway in the UK)
* paved (or at least obviously designated and well maintained)
pedestrian ways - highway=footway
* unpaved track, suitable for a 4-wheeled vehicles - highway=track (with
tracktype, when possible)
* paved, small road - highway=service (but an unpaved driveway would
still get highway=service + service=driveway)
I try to add surface tags, but there are cases when I'm afraid to do so
- for example, if there's a long way and I know its surface for some
segment, I don't want to guess on the remainder, or split it.
And a very, very big request to everybody who got this far... Please do
not invent anything country-specific for these (we already have footways
in the UK, and mostly Germans would use highway=track for paved ways I'd
still consider highway=service).
Not only it makes things hard for mapping abroad, it also makes map data
hard to consume. I take it for granted that highway=service will be
always passable in a low city car, but a track could get me stuck.
> Martijn
>
>> On Apr 19, 2019, at 8:28 AM, brad <bradhaack at fastmail.com
>> <mailto:bradhaack at fastmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Everywhere I've been in the US or Canada a dirt 'way' too narrow for a
>> 4 wheel vehicle is called a trail, path, or single track. For the
>> most part they are appropriately (IMO) tagged as path. Unfortunately
>> the wiki says this for highway:path (the highlighting is mine):
>>
>> /A non-specific path. //*Use **highway=footway
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>**for paths
>> mainly for walkers, **highway=cycleway
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway>**for one
>> also usable by cyclists, **highway=bridleway
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway>**for
>> ones available to horse riders as well as walkers *//and
>> //highway=track
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack>//for ones
>> which is passable by agriculture or similar vehicles./
>>
>> I think it makes no sense to call a dirt path, open to more than 1
>> user group, anything other than a path. Since about 98% of the
>> trail tagging that I've seen seems to agree, Is there consensus on
>> this? Perhaps if the international group likes the description as
>> is, a clarification on the US road tagging wiki page?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
--
Rihards
More information about the Talk-us
mailing list