[OSM-talk] walking routes?

[Jo]

Andy Allan wrote:
> 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!
>   
That's great news. In my comment I was only reflecting the current 
situation, not what you might or might not do :-) Glad to see I function 
as some sort of katalysator though.

Keep up the good work,

Polyglot