Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Just doing some looking & spotted:
https://qorf-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/11153757/TrackGradingSystem_UserGuide.pdf

which includes

Glossary
AS 2156.1-2001 Walking Tracks - Classification and Signage
The Australian Walking Track Grading System benchmarks to AS 2156.1-2001.
A Grade 1 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 1 track
A Grade 2 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 2 track
A Grade 3 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 3 track
A Grade 4 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 4 track
*A Grade 5 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 5 and 6 track*

So it appears there may only be 5 levels?

Would make sense as Grade 5 refers to multi-day, long-distance, remote-area
walks!

Another slightly different, & possibly a bit clearer version:
https://www.trailhiking.com.au/preparing-to-hike/track-grading/

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:22, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> Ian,
>
> +1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international
> perspective. I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and Sweden,
> also both countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely "alpine"
> and also came to the conclusion that what matters is the type of people
> wanting to use the path rather than specific physical attributes of the
> path. And particularly at the less hardcore end.  If one substitutes
> "hiking" for "bushwalking", it works in those countries as well, IMHO.
>
> The categories I've played with conceptually are:
>
> - I could take my very elderly mother
>
> - Suitable for inexperienced walkers in everyday footwear (which could
> include high heels). Less charitably: City folks stroll.
>
> - Could I get a push-chair/stroller down here? (and by extension assisted
> wheel-chair)
>
> - I'm fine with walking but don't want to be using my arms, (balance,
> holding-on, hauling myself up).
>
> - I'm fine with scrambling but don't take me anywhere where I'll be
> nervous about falling off.
>
> - Bring it on
>
>
> I think the system satisfies the above in a nice linear fashion without
> too many categories. I'd be interested to know what the mysterious AS
> 2156.1-2001 6th one is. Copied from the URL provided:
>
>- Grade One is suitable for people with a disability with assistance
>- Grade Two is suitable for families with young children
>- Grade Three is recommended for people with some bushwalking
>experience
>- Grade Four is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
>- Grade Five is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers
>
> Mike
> On 2022-01-28 16:41, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:
>
> I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading
> System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire
> Management -
> https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system).
> The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.
>
>
>
> It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD
> and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.
>
>
>
> I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a
> “Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted those
> tags without reference to me!)
>
>
>
> Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1:
> Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to read
> the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other
> documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels
>
>
>
> Ian
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Michael Collinson]

Ian,

+1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international 
perspective. I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and 
Sweden, also both countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely 
"alpine" and also came to the conclusion that what matters is the type 
of people wanting to use the path rather than specific physical 
attributes of the path. And particularly at the less hardcore end.  If 
one substitutes "hiking" for "bushwalking", it works in those countries 
as well, IMHO.


The categories I've played with conceptually are:

- I could take my very elderly mother

- Suitable for inexperienced walkers in everyday footwear (which could 
include high heels). Less charitably: City folks stroll.


- Could I get a push-chair/stroller down here? (and by extension 
assisted wheel-chair)


- I'm fine with walking but don't want to be using my arms, (balance, 
holding-on, hauling myself up).


- I'm fine with scrambling but don't take me anywhere where I'll be 
nervous about falling off.


- Bring it on


I think the system satisfies the above in a nice linear fashion without 
too many categories. I'd be interested to know what the mysterious AS 
2156.1-2001 6th one is. Copied from the URL provided:


 * Grade One is suitable for people with a disability with assistance
 * Grade Two is suitable for families with young children
 * Grade Three is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
 * Grade Four is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
 * Grade Five is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers

Mike

On 2022-01-28 16:41, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:


I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading 
System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire 
Management - 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system). 
The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.


It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, 
QLD and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.


I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a 
“Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted 
those tags without reference to me!)


Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1: 
Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to 
read the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the 
AWTGS.  Other documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as 
having 6 levels


Ian


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[iansteer]

I strongly prefer highway=path over highway=footway.

 

Most "paths" that get tagged as footways are not signed to say that bicycles
are NOT permitted - hence bicycles ARE permitted.  Hence, if a path is
tagged as a footway, you then need to go and add a 2nd tag "bicycle=yes" -
otherwise routers won't route a bicycle on that path (I've lost count of the
number of times I've had to add that tag.)

 

It is much simpler (and less chance of being incorrect) to simply tag
"highway=path" - and "highway=footway" adds no more information than
"highway=path"  (it just says "it's a path you can walk on" - which is
assumed by when something is tagged as "highway=path").

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[iansteer]

I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading
System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire
Management -
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/austr
alian-walking-track-grading-system).  The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.

 

It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD
and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.

 

I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a
"Class") as "awtgs=" (however someone in Germany has since deleted those
tags without reference to me!)

 

Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled "Walking Tracks, Part 1:
Classification and signage".  However, I don't have a subscription to read
the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other
documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels

 

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On this subject, just working through Notes & found this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=15/-36.0545/146.8886 (you'll have to
turn Notes on to see it!), which reads:

*" Private Property. The following are not public tracks/trails. TV Track,
Rons Trail, Kuhne Trail, part of Gorge Trail, Blood Gully and all un-named
trails and tracks within following boundary - on Southern side marked -
Glenroy, Western Boundary marked - Splitters Creek and the Ridge Trail on
Eastern and Northern side."*

Submitted by "Anonymous", 15/5/19.

They all show as tracks or paths, foot & bike, route=mtb:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-36.0522/146.8825

So what do we do?

Do we take an anonymous comment as gospel & mark them no access? (I
wouldn't have said so!)

Or just leave them for somebody in the area to confirm one way or the other?

The comment is ~3 years old, & the last update on a couple of the tracks
that I looked at was last year, so it would appear that at least somebody
thinks they're still active & accessible!

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 11:20, Adam Horan  wrote:

> *Seems like most folks change to path if it in a ‘park’ of some sort and
>> use ‘footway’ in the streets*
>
>
> I'm very much in this camp, not so much actively changing them if someone
> retags, but generally preferring 'path' for things out in the countryside
> and footway for urban settings.
>
> Plus path seems so flexible and has fewer confusing connotations. path +
> foot + bike is fine and clear, but footway + bike, or cycleway + foot is
> confusing.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 10:34, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater
>> Hobart’ as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it
>> in a ‘park’ of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Andrew Harvey 
>> *Sent:* Friday, 28 January 2022 10:25 AM
>> *To:* Phil Wyatt 
>> *Cc:* Tony Forster ; talk OSM Australian List <
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>>
>>
>>
>> Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path,
>> 10% footway.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>>
>> Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
>> vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')
>>
>> Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe
>> try
>> it o your local parks
>>
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
>> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM
>> To: Phil Wyatt 
>> Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian
>> List'
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit
>> prohibition of bicycles.
>>
>> But I could be wrong
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> > Thanks folks,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the
>> > ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing
>> > strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz
>> > Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where  there
>> > is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as something  like
>> > the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split from path  to
>> > footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so
>> > it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers - Phil
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Andrew Harvey 
>> > Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
>> > To: talk OSM Australian List 
>> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt > >  > wrote:
>> >
>> > Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use
>> >  do not use  
>> > highway= 
>> >  footway and the preference is
>> >  highway=
>> >  path, but
>> > the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the
>> > differentiation?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my
>> > view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for
>> > use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with
>> > no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway
>> > with this view.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > An alternative view is that 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 09:34, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater
> Hobart’ as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it
> in a ‘park’ of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets
>

I must admit to having recently (lazily!) started using "path" for most of
them, rather than footway + bike=yes or bike path + foot=yes.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Phil Wyatt]

It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater Hobart’ 
as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it in a ‘park’ 
of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 10:25 AM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: Tony Forster ; talk OSM Australian List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

 

Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path, 10% 
footway.

 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')

Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe try
it o your local parks

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au   
mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > 
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM
To: Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >
Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 
>; 'talk OSM Australian List'
mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Hi

Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit
prohibition of bicycles.

But I could be wrong

Tony

> Thanks folks,
>
>
>
> OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the   
> ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing  
> strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz  
> Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where  there 
> is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as something  like 
> the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split from path  to 
> footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.
>
>
>
> I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so   
> it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.
>
>
>
> I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Harvey   >
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
> To: talk OSM Australian List   >
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt  
>  > > wrote:
>
> Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use  
>  do not use     
> highway=   
>  footway and the preference is
>  highway=   
>  path, but   
> the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the   
> differentiation?
>
>
>
> That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my   
> view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for   
> use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with  
> no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.
>
>
>
> So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway   
> with this view.
>
>
>
> An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and   
> remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that   
> view is outdated now.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32,  
>  > > wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I assumed that
> highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not 
> allow bicycles
>
> highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not 
> allow pedestrians
>
> and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes
>
>
>
> For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still  
>  remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but   
> which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use  
> for.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data   
> consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?
>
>





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Andrew Harvey]

Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path,
10% footway.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
> vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')
>
> Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe
> try
> it o your local parks
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
> -Original Message-
> From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM
> To: Phil Wyatt 
> Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian List'
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>
> Hi
>
> Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit
> prohibition of bicycles.
>
> But I could be wrong
>
> Tony
>
> > Thanks folks,
> >
> >
> >
> > OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the
> > ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing
> > strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz
> > Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where  there
> > is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as something  like
> > the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split from path  to
> > footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.
> >
> >
> >
> > I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so
> > it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.
> >
> >
> >
> > I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers - Phil
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Andrew Harvey 
> > Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
> > To: talk OSM Australian List 
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt  >  > wrote:
> >
> > Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use
> >  do not use  
> > highway= 
> >  footway and the preference is
> >  highway=
> >  path, but
> > the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the
> > differentiation?
> >
> >
> >
> > That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my
> > view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for
> > use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with
> > no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.
> >
> >
> >
> > So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway
> > with this view.
> >
> >
> >
> > An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and
> > remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that
> > view is outdated now.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32,  >  > wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I assumed that
> > highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not
> > allow bicycles
> >
> > highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not
> > allow pedestrians
> >
> > and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes
> >
> >
> >
> > For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still
> >  remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but
> > which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use
> > for.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data
> > consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Phil Wyatt]

Try this query - it will work on any area (by bounding box) and also
includes cycleways

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fvX

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 8:26 AM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: Phil Wyatt ; talk OSM Australian List

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

>> Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park
> It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway?

No, Phil's query works for me, there is very little footway so its hard to
see at low zoom. I changed the colours from red and orange to blue and green
and its a bit better

Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Phil Wyatt]

Try the very northern end of the park – the major walkway (that has the power 
and sewerage pipes under it) is a footway, as are some of the other local 
tracks, but boardwalks (not tagged) on the Overland Track are still paths

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 8:22 AM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: fors...@ozonline.com.au; talk OSM Australian List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

 




 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:35, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park

 

It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park

It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway?


No, Phil's query works for me, there is very little footway so its  
hard to see at low zoom. I changed the colours from red and orange to  
blue and green and its a bit better


Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:35, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park


It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Phil Wyatt]

Yep, its tough sometimes to get definitive answers to tagging issues when
sometimes there are multiple tags that mean the same thing

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 11:33 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian List'

Subject: RE: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

> Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified 
> as vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')

Hi
This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User who
wanted to tag all footpaths in Victoria with bicycle=no and the community
consensus was that it wasn't OSM's role to document legislation, the data
consumers could worry about what to do with cyclists and footpaths and OSM
would concentrate on ground truth.

Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')


Hi
This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User  
who wanted to tag all footpaths in Victoria with bicycle=no and the  
community consensus was that it wasn't OSM's role to document  
legislation, the data consumers could worry about what to do with  
cyclists and footpaths and OSM would concentrate on ground truth.


Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Phil Wyatt]

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')

Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe try
it o your local parks

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian List'

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Hi

Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit
prohibition of bicycles.

But I could be wrong

Tony

> Thanks folks,
>
>
>
> OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the   
> ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing  
> strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz  
> Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where  there 
> is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as something  like 
> the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split from path  to 
> footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.
>
>
>
> I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so   
> it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.
>
>
>
> I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Harvey 
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
> To: talk OSM Australian List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt   > wrote:
>
> Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use  
>  do not use     
> highway=   
>  footway and the preference is
>  highway=   
>  path, but   
> the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the   
> differentiation?
>
>
>
> That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my   
> view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for   
> use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with  
> no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.
>
>
>
> So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway   
> with this view.
>
>
>
> An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and   
> remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that   
> view is outdated now.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32,   > wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I assumed that
> highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not 
> allow bicycles
>
> highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not 
> allow pedestrians
>
> and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes
>
>
>
> For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still  
>  remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but   
> which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use  
> for.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data   
> consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?
>
>





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Hi

Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an  
explicit prohibition of bicycles.


But I could be wrong

Tony


Thanks folks,



OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the   
?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing  
 strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs,  
Hartz  Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more  
where  there is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as  
something  like the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split  
from path  to footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.




I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so   
it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.




I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.



Cheers - Phil



From: Andrew Harvey 
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
To: talk OSM Australian List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths





On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt  > wrote:


Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use  
 do not use     
highway=   
 footway and the preference is
 highway=   
 path, but   
the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the   
differentiation?




That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my   
view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for   
use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with  
 no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.




So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway   
with this view.




An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and   
remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that   
view is outdated now.




On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32,  > wrote:


Hi

I assumed that
highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not
allow bicycles

highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not
allow pedestrians

and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes



For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still  
 remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but   
which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use  
 for.




At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data   
consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?









___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks folks,

 

OK – It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the ‘bushwalking’ 
track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing strange footway out the 
middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz Mountains). I did suspect that 
footway is being used more where there is infrastructure but that will also be 
an issue as something like the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split 
from path to footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.

 

I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so it can be 
nailed down before I start a QA across the network.

 

I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
To: talk OSM Australian List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

 

 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do not use 
  highway= 
 footway and the 
preference is   highway= 
 path, but the walking 
track page mentions that tag regularly – what is the differentiation?

 

That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my view which 
is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for use mostly by people on 
foot and highway=path is a generic path with no clear intended mode, but not 
wide enough for cars.

 

So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway with this view.

 

An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and remote 
bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that view is outdated 
now.

 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

Hi

I assumed that
highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not  
allow bicycles

highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not  
allow pedestrians

and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes

 

For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still remains 
best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but which is the main mode 
it was built for/designed for/actively in use for.

 

At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data consumers really 
distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do
> not use highway =footway
>  and the
> preference is highway =
> path , but the
> walking track page mentions that tag regularly – what is the
> differentiation?
>

That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my view
which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for use mostly by
people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with no clear intended
mode, but not wide enough for cars.

So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway with this
view.

An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and remote
bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that view is
outdated now.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32,  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I assumed that
> highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not
> allow bicycles
>
> highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not
> allow pedestrians
>
> and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes
>

For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still
remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but which is
the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use for.

At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data consumers
really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[forster]

Hi

I assumed that
highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not  
allow bicycles


highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not  
allow pedestrians


and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes

but maybe I am wrong.

Tony


Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use  
 do not use     
highway=   
 footway and the preference is
 highway=   
 path, but   
the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the   
differentiation?






From: Andrew Harvey 
Sent: Monday, 24 January 2022 10:54 PM
To: talk OSM Australian List 
Cc: Tony Forster ; nwastra nwastra   
; Phil Wyatt 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths







On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt  > wrote:


Hi Folks,

I agree that a good discussion is useful but at the same time the OSM
community needs to understand what a hassle it can be to have these tracks
in OSM and having no, or little, control on how any other app/web interface
may show them.

I actually favour deletion as well but understand that is not the 'OSM way
of doing things'. A full discussion may help the agency, and OSM
contributors understand the issues on both sides.

I also think it would be useful for others to join in the US trails group so
that a more international perspective can be applied to this issue. The
situation can be very different across countries (especially legally).



Inspired by the US trails group work, I thought maybe we can attempt  
 something localised for Australia.




I started sketching something out at   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks. If   
anyone thinks this is a good idea, please feel free to contribute to  
 that page.



_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Warin]

On 27/1/22 09:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 18:01, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:



Obviously river conditions change, but I think it's useful to tag
what's usually the case:

1. creek crossing where generall the water level is so low that
you won't have water ingress in your shoes
2. creek crossing where your body will stay dry but you'll want to
take your shoes off if you prefer to keep them dry
3. river crossing where your body will get wet, may have a rope to
help you cross, but you can wade through the water and won't
usually need to swim
4. river crossing where you'll need to swim across

I don't like using numbers as values as they aren't self
explanatory but I can't think of short terms you could use for tag
values.


How about:

waterway=river/stream +
crossing = (maybe foot_crossing= ?)
1. paddling
2. knee_deep
3. chest_deep
4. swimming

I think they'd be self-explanatory to everybody?



Possibly .. but some may prefere an less subjective measure?


depth=* default in meters.

And for water speed ... speed:water=*

Asses by throwing in a stick and seeing how far it travels metres in x 
seconds -, convert to km/h ?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au