[OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Andrew Harvey]

Abandoned is a tricky concept for a path, what make is abandoned? If there
is a sign up saying track closed or keep out for re-vegetation it's clear,
but otherwise it's less clear.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 01:36, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about deleting it
> altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path before deleting it to
> something like "note=nothing on this alignment any more".
>

If there is still some evidence on the ground, I think using the lifecycle
prefix is preferable because usually it takes a few years for a path to be
completely revegetated and provides a more accurate picture of what's
happening on the ground and helps data consumers track the it through the
different states.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 02:06, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I use:
> disused:highway=path/footway/etc
> or
> abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc
>

I have used that too where it really is closed via signage, but if it's
just overgrown from lack of use, it could still be in active use.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 02:55, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown has some usage
>

I didn't know about that, usually I've just been adding
description=overgrown, but that tag is better. It's in need of some
discussion and documentation though to make it not subjective.

I suggest overgrown=yes would apply if you're constantly brushing against
the vegetation (not just occasionally but to the the point that you're
almost always in contact with the vegetation for the whole segment).

Then light if it has negligible affect on walking pace, dense if it slows
you down considerably.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200926/8c961389/attachment.htm>