[OSM-talk] walking routes?

Andy Robinson (blackadder) blackadderajr at googlemail.com
Mon Jan 21 15:39:00 GMT 2008


Andy Allan wrote:
>Sent: 21 January 2008 10:34 AM
>To: Nick Whitelegg
>Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] walking routes?
>
>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.

nwr/rwr/lwr works for me (national/regional/local walking route)

Some might also use (be using) long_distance_footpath/trail or something
similar, but that's because that's the way we refer to long routes in the UK
and I don't think we should use that as a standard.

In many countries footpaths are numbered (but a trip to the local library is
normally needed in the UK to get hold of them for public footpaths) so I can
see that following a method similar to the cycle network should work well
but might be a little more difficult to visualise in the UK and perhaps
other places because of a lack of numbering on the ground. Footpath routes
are far more prevalent than cycle routes so some method of differentiating
them on a map needs to be found. Perhaps between paved and unpaved routes
etc.

>
>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!

Would be great to see :-)

>
>Cheers,
>Andy
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk





More information about the talk mailing list