[OSM-talk] walking routes?

[Andy Allan]

On Jan 21, 2008 10:19 AM, Nick Whitelegg <Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Also walking routes?  This would be good news.  I started with
> >walking (hiking) route around Nuremberg.  What are the
> >recommended relation tags for walking routes?
>
> Do you mean walking routes as in paths, or walking routes as in a specific
> route you follow for a day's walk? The former would be highway=footway,
> plus foot=yes if an officially recognised path - whilst the latter are not
> currently on OSM.

I think it's the latter, the same as for cycling "routes" being the
meta, rather than the physical ("cycleway"). I've thought about this
before but I never followed it through. I really think that they
cycling stuff works well, and it could easily be replicated into
walking by using the idea of national/regional/local walking routes
and refs/names, e.g.

nfr = yes, nfr_name = Penine Way
lfr = proposed, lfr_name = Wandle Trail, lfr_ref = W34

for national footway route, local footway route and so on. *I'm only
proposing the concept, not the tag names* - I think whoever kicks this
off should come up with something better than nfr (!), but I think it
would be nice to work in a parallel fashion to the way we deal with
cycle routes i.e. completely separating the route information from
everything else, and having a internationally-applicable hierarchy.

And as an aside to Jo, I'll probably put walking routes on my cycle
map since I like walking too and, well, it's my map, so I get to chose
what goes on it!

Cheers,
Andy