I would like some consensus on the tagging of Australian bushwalking tracks. Specifically, I am interested in unformed ways that are unsuitable for all but the most courageous/insane cyclists. They are typically just a worn path through bush. In some places (e.g. Royal National Park (RNP)) they are designated as cycling prohibited (see http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NationalParks/parkCycling.aspx?id=N0030) a way on which cycling is permitted is referred to as a trail and one for walkers only, as a track. The RNP naming is inconsistent and these designations do not match OSM nomenclature.
The OSM Australian Tagging Guidelines (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines) deals with cycling comprehensively (indeed, it seems biased that way) but is silent on this point except for suggesting that an "Australian footpath" be tagged as highway=footway with "bicycle=no if unsuitable for bikes". While this might seem to address the issue, it is inconsistent with the general OSM guidance (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway) which clearly illustrates an urban, paved footpath. This is consistent with the Australian usage of the term footpath as the Macquarie dictionary defines a foot path as "a path for pedestrians only, especially one at the side of a road or street." Given this inconsistency, I have been tagging fire trails and the like (I ask myself if they are suitable for 4WD) as highway=track and bushwalking tracks as highway=path. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
