[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

Andy Robinson Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Jul 17 10:01:14 BST 2007

Alex Mauer [mailto:hawke at hawkesnest.net] wrote:
>Sent: 17 July 2007 9:20 AM
>To: Andy Robinson
>Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags
>Andy Robinson wrote:
>>> The reason I have is that there is currently no way to have a path that
>>> *isn't* primarily a footway, cycleway, or cycleway.  A ski trail would
>>> be a good example of this, which I actually have in my area; The path(s)
>>> in question is not allowed to be used other than for skiing, (in winter)
>>> presumably to prevent or reduce erosion.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_Piste_Maps for
>> of how people have previously made piste maps
>Hmm, interesting link.  I thought tags based on class= were no longer
>recommended though.

As I think 80n pointed out, that page is pretty old and I also suspect it
had a gestation period that crossed over with the original "class" tagging.

>I hadn't considered alpine pistes, only nordic ski trails; they are
>largely incompatible, since (as the linked page mentions) alpine pistes
>are generally areas rather than trails/paths.  They are often joined by
>trails though, so that applies.
>Would anyone have objections to the following new highway= values:
>highway=alpine_ski (linear/area)
>highway=atv (all terrain vehicle, typically 3-wheeler or 4-wheeler)

Probably better to wait till the STAGS stuff is out as the above is only
going to confuse people even more. However if you were to list out those
same features with two tags (one for the physical and one for the
administrative/descriptive) then that might be a good start as I'll probably
no be suggesting piste type tags for the first round of discussion but would
be happy to include any that get forwarded.



Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk 

>They may all need _trail or _path appended ... or maybe ...way for
>consistency with bridleway/cycleway/footway.
>That captures all the additional special-use trail types I can think of,
>but still doesn't cover a shared-use trail.  So to cover that instance,
>highway=shared should work.
>Again, does anyone have objections to those?
>I'm still not comfortable with putting all sorts of routes under
>highway, but if that's the consensus I can live with it.  If that's the
>case, is there any reason not to combine water-based routes in as well?
>(The public land access rules of Scotland seem to correspond with the
>lack of evident routes over water; that is, the only reason to document
>a route in either case is because it's commonly in use.  Note that I am
>not entirely familiar with those Scottish rules so I could very well be
>-Alex Mauer "hawke"

More information about the talk mailing list