[OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Thanks for the replies, will probably go with something like overgrown=yes.

The path concerned has not been closed - it looks like a forestry track which was formerly used by vehicles but hasn't for many years. However, unlike many of the paths in the same area it doesn't appear to be popular as a 'desire path' and is definitely less pleasurable to negotiate than many of the others in the area. Just wanted some way of distinguishing this path from others in the area in active use, so that those seeking a 'nice walk in the woods' could avoid it!

Nick

________________________________
From: Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
Sent: 26 September 2020 03:58
To: Talk Openstreetmap <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20200927/b0a1fef4/attachment.htm>