Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Tod Fitch]

Being a Sierra Club member in California, it seems to me that the Yosemite 
Decimal System (YDS) [1], originally created by the Sierra Club is made to 
order for this. Classes 1 through 3 are basically hiking, 4 is transitional and 
5 is technical climbing. My understanding having been exposed to this for 
decades is slightly different from that in Wikipedia mine are:

1 - No special gear or equipment needed. If not the equivalent to a city 
sideway in difficulty, it is very close.
2 - Uneven, loose or other surfaces where good hiking shoes are advisable.
3 - You may occasionally need to use a hand to steady yourself in difficult 
areas.
4 - Climbing or scrambling but low exposure and/or low risk of injury such that 
safety equipment like ropes are not required.
5 - Climbing requiring technical skills and equipment.

Class 5 was divided into 10 levels (thus a “decimal” system) but has been 
expanded to well more than 10 sub levels over the years as techniques and gear 
have evolved. But that is off topic when dealing with hiking trails. I think 
for most of what I’d map as a trail we are dealing with classes 1 through 3. In 
Kevin’s example system, the trail with a toddler would be a 1 and the other two 
examples would be either 3 or 4.

I only see one mention of YDS in the wiki [2] and only a few uses that seem to 
use it in TagInfo [3] likely because the various 5 class sub-levels are 
associated with climbing [4][5] and many people seem to be unaware of classes 1 
through 4.

Cheers,
Tod

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Decimal_System
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Climbing#Grading
[3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=yds#keys
[4] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/climbing%3Agrade%3Ayds_class
[5] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/climbing%3Ayds_class

> On May 23, 2020, at 4:59 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
>  wrote:
>> 
>> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched 
>> - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to 
>> sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, 
>> and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a 
>> sidewalk or playground way.
>> 
>> Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up 
>> runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.
> 
> Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
> out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
> problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
> https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
> scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
> only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
> mean death.
> 
> Confusion on what to expect from wilderness trails abounds. Hardly a
> year goes by without someone from New York City driving up to do one
> of the Catskill or Adirondack trails, expecting something like a
> developed trail in a suburban setting, and winding up dead, from
> either a fall or hypothermia.
> 
> This is a `highway=footway surface=ground`:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/34048181 - a toddler can do it
> with ease.
> 
> So is this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/65793193@N00/3183604743/ -
> requires good physical condition, a head for heights, and some
> technical hiking skills. Shorter hikers may be at a disadvantage.
> 
> And this: 
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oOi7vvpUt0Q/VJnktGwmMDI/BoY/xYpcKlxPPqI/s1600/DSC_3880.JPG
> - requires winter mountaineering skills and a modicum of technical
> equipment (at least snowshoes or skis, ski poles, crampons, ice axe).
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:11 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
> Being a Sierra Club member in California, it seems to me that the Yosemite 
> Decimal System (YDS) [1], originally created by the Sierra Club is made to 
> order for this. Classes 1 through 3 are basically hiking, 4 is transitional 
> and 5 is technical climbing. My understanding having been exposed to this for 
> decades is slightly different from that in Wikipedia mine are:
>
> 1 - No special gear or equipment needed. If not the equivalent to a city 
> sideway in difficulty, it is very close.
> 2 - Uneven, loose or other surfaces where good hiking shoes are advisable.
> 3 - You may occasionally need to use a hand to steady yourself in difficult 
> areas.
> 4 - Climbing or scrambling but low exposure and/or low risk of injury such 
> that safety equipment like ropes are not required.
> 5 - Climbing requiring technical skills and equipment.
>
> Class 5 was divided into 10 levels (thus a “decimal” system) but has been 
> expanded to well more than 10 sub levels over the years as techniques and 
> gear have evolved. But that is off topic when dealing with hiking trails. I 
> think for most of what I’d map as a trail we are dealing with classes 1 
> through 3. In Kevin’s example system, the trail with a toddler would be a 1 
> and the other two examples would be either 3 or 4.

There are a couple of moves on the second trail that are a technical
difficulty of about 5.4, but the exposed stuff isn't that difficult
and the technical stuff isn't exposed - so class 4 is about right.
Except that the very existence of class 4 is controversial:
https://www.summitpost.org/class-four-is-a-myth-problems-in-yds/891794

The third trail is similar difficulty to the second in summer. At the
time that the picture was taken, I'd call it an M1 - there's a
different classification for-mixed-ice-and-rock. The guidebook says
that trail is hikable from mid-May to mid-October and we were climbing
in December in that pic. We switched a couple of times between
snowshoes and crampons, and brought out the ice axes at least once or
twice.

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:05 PM Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>  https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 I would tag as 
> sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, my rule of thumb is anything where the 
> average person would need to use their hands to get over an obstacle is 
> demanding_mountain_hiking. This is what the wiki says too "exposed sites may 
> be secured with ropes or chains, possible need to use hands for balance".

That's how I'd scale it if I hadn't been scolded for over-grading it.
(The person who scolded me also argued that "need to use hands to get
ahead" for class 4 was a poor translation, and that it would better
read "need to take full body weight on hands".) I actually simply
accepted the scolding and 'forgot' to retag it, so it's still
demanding_mountain_hiking in OSM. One of the guidebooks reads. "the
rock is sound, holds are plentiful and route-finding is
straightforward. Nevertheless, the exposure is dramatic, and less
confident parties may wish to employ a rope" - which sounds like
textbook class-4 if such a thing exists.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 11:11, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> Being a Sierra Club member in California, it seems to me that the Yosemite
> Decimal System (YDS) [1], originally created by the Sierra Club is made to
> order for this. Classes 1 through 3 are basically hiking, 4 is transitional
> and 5 is technical climbing. My understanding having been exposed to this
> for decades is slightly different from that in Wikipedia mine are:
>
> 1 - No special gear or equipment needed. If not the equivalent to a city
> sideway in difficulty, it is very close.
> 2 - Uneven, loose or other surfaces where good hiking shoes are advisable.
> 3 - You may occasionally need to use a hand to steady yourself in
> difficult areas.
> 4 - Climbing or scrambling but low exposure and/or low risk of injury such
> that safety equipment like ropes are not required.
> 5 - Climbing requiring technical skills and equipment.
>

We have a similar system here

The Australian Walking Track Grading System

Grade 1 is suitable for the disabled with assistance

Grade 2 is suitable for families with young children

Grade 3 is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience

Grade 4 is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and

Grade 5 is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers

https://www.aussiebushwalking.com/grading

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Claire Halleux]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:10 PM Mario Frasca wrote:

>
> in reality, I wish we could review the whole setting.  and have
> `amenity=healthcare` followed by `healthcare=*` to specify further.
>
> I find the whole repetition confusing, and quite error prone.
>

Agreed. Although, I'm not even sure if we should still need
amenity=healthcare or just go without it at some point.

>
> anyhow, let's make sure we can map these healthcare facilities at level
> lower than nurses.
>
> Yes and it's now officially started!
Next: let's get them rendered on the map too.

Claire
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[brad]

On 5/23/20 5:59 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:

=path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched - I 
am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to sidewalk, 
so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, and then 
apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a sidewalk or 
playground way.

Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up runways 
and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.

Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
mean death.



Similar problem with mtb:scale .

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Claire Halleux]

@Dolly,

Since the referral health centers (centres de santé de référence) are
supposed to have at least one doctor in the DRC, they have mainly been
mapped with amenity=doctors. Actually the same tag has also often been used
to map even the more "basic" health centers without doctors. This could
evolve soon, likely using the amenity=health_post value, whose description
has been adapted accordingly to the current discussion.

As there's a good number of contributors willing to make more use of
healthcare key, I was thinking to add a section on the "healthcare=centre"
wikipage to describe how that value is currently used in different
countries. I don't know the Indian health system but their definition of
Primary Health Centre seems relatively close of the local health centres
that I know. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_system_in_India
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Health_Centre_(India).

So until a better solution is agreed on, we'll probably continue to map
using both amenity and healthcare tags, but leaving the
health_facility:type one.

Thank you very much for joining the exchanges.

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Manda Andriatsiferana <
privatemaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Claire and all,
>
>  @Claire I know this thread is about health posts and community care sites
> but I'm curious: which tag(s) are you willing to keep for your Centres de
> Santé? From your
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Congo-Kinshasa/Conventions/Sant%C3%A9 
> suggested
> is health_facility:type=health_centre and/or healthcare=centre . Wiki
> page for healthcare=centre doesn't say anything except the tag has unclear
> meaning.
>
> In Madagascar we don't have those health posts but above community care
> sites in the hierarchy we have facilities called Centres de Santé de Base.
> Sometimes those have doctor(s) + nurses, and sometimes only nurses. I think
> those facilities should correspond to your Centres de Santé. We've been
> tagging them as health_facility:type=dispensary and I think it is time to
> find better tags for them too.
>
> Again thanks for this useful thread.
>
> --
> Dolly Andriatsiferana
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 2:55 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Now next step is to either get back to other mappers and explain why
>> =dispensary
>> would be likely confusing for others and just map using whatever tags
>> seems best.
>>
>> Or go through a proposal process
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
>> if you want.
>>
>> I have seen some edits already, but documenting what was gathered in this
>> discussion by
>> documenting it on OSM Wiki may be also a good idea.
>>
>> May 22, 2020, 01:35 by claire.hall...@hotosm.org:
>>
>> Thank you for the detailed answer.
>>
>> Indeed, this amenity=health_post tag is similar to the "poste de santé"
>> in the DRC. It is the exact match of one of the 5 low-range health facility
>> types among the 14 types of health facilities currently documented in the
>> country (
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Congo-Kinshasa/Conventions/Sant%C3%A9).
>> The tag description is likely to cover other types of facilities too, it
>> will likely be discussed on the local list next.
>>
>> Happy to read that community_health_worker value might get consensus.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The tag amenity=health_post has been mainly used in Nepal, with some use
>> in Guinea (West Africa) and northern Ethiopia:
>>
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/UeI
>>
>> Those in Guinea are usually named "Poste de santé de " - so
>> perhaps they are similar to the Poste de Santé in your area?
>> E.g. nodes 4218024825 ,
>> 4218025230 , and
>> 4218028928 
>>
>> There is an online article about the Health Post system in Ethiopia:
>> http://www.hhpronline.org/articles/2016/12/17/the-health-extension-program-of-ethiopia
>>
>> "More than 38,000 government-salaried female Health Extension Workers
>> (HEWs) are deployed in the country. 3 Two HEWs are assigned to one health
>> post to serve a population ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 in a village
>> “kebele”. HEWs provide key health services through fixed and outreach
>> bases. They spend half of their working time conducting home visits and
>> outreach activities and the remaining half at their health post providing
>> basic curative, promotive and preventive services."
>>
>> Example: node 977989612 
>>
>> In Nepal, the amenity=health_post is used for "Health Post" and
>> "Sub-Health Post" facilities. This article says:
>>
>> "health assitant, axulliary health worker, assistant nurse midwife and
>> maternal-child health worker are designated to work in PHC-C, HP [Health
>> Post] or SHP [Sub-Health Post] in rural areas but 

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 15:53, Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-05-23, št, 04:51 Jarek Piórkowski rašė:
> > See also: not rendering roads or hamlets in very sparsely populated
> > areas because we have one map style which needs to accommodate central
> > European densities.
>
>   OSM-Carto is a very well done DATA VISUALISATION. It is not a
> cartography. What you're asking cannot be done with only tagging as
> you will have ways which look exactly the same but will have to be
> removed in one place and will remain in the map in another place. What
> you're asking is accomplished in CARTOGRAPHY by "road network
> pruning". It checks density/class of roads and removes minor ones at
> the places of high density. It is one of cartographic generalisation
> functions. All important generalisation functions take additional
> heavy pre-processing and that is probably a reason why OpenStreetMap
> does not have any Cartography projects yet.
>

 The fact that most maps would look bare until you zoom in was the primary
motivation for me creating my BeyondTracks Bushwalking Map (
beyondtracks.com/map). I show highway=path from zoom 5.

I wrote up some of the technical details at
https://tech.beyondtracks.com/posts/designing-an-australian-bushwalking-map/
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
> similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other
> “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t
> expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>

Right now you can use
sac_scale=hiking,mountain_hiking,demanding_mountain_hiking to indicate if a
path is a hiking trail. Though you can't really currently say something is
not a hiking trail.

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:01, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
>  wrote:
> >
> > =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
> similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other
> “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t
> expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
> >
> > Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up
> runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.
>
> Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
> out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
> problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
> https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
> scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
> only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
> mean death.
>

 https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 I would tag
as sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, my rule of thumb is anything where
the average person would need to use their hands to get over an obstacle
is demanding_mountain_hiking. This is what the wiki says too "exposed sites
may be secured with ropes or chains, possible need to use hands for
balance".

Anything that doesn't need hands, but has a fall hazard/is exposed would be
sac_scale=mountain_hiking (assuming it's not alpine).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Warin]

I tag for the use of the 'path/road/etc'.
If it is for a walker then I tag the width for the walker, usually this 
is the width at ground level but there are ones where the smaller width 
is at hip level (rocks) so I tag the width there.
A width of 0.3 me3ans I have to remove my pack and push it through 
infront of me. If the walk length is more than 3 days I may have to 
remove things from the pack and make 2 trips.


On 23/5/20 2:20 am, Tod Fitch wrote:


On May 22, 2020, at 5:24 AM, Ture Pålsson via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:




22 maj 2020 kl. 12:52 skrev Daniel Westergren >:


[…] Then there is width, which is only tagged on 3.5% of 
highway=path. I was discussing width of paths in another forum. For 
a forest path, would you say width is measured as the actual tread 
on the ground only? For a runner and MTB cyclist that would make 
sense, but for a hiker with a big backpack a width of 0.3 m may mean 
they think it's not possible to walk there.


We need loading_gauge=* tag. :-)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge)



Width is, at least in my area, going to be a hard issue.

For background, I have been volunteering on trail maintenance teams in 
a near by designated wilderness area where the vegetation is largely 
chaparral (scrub) and this has shaped my opinion.


Many of our trails were originally ranch access roads (highway=track) 
and in some short sections here and there where things were scraped to 
bedrock the trails remains that wide, maybe 3m. However the 
overwhelming majority of the trail mileage have been overgrown to the 
point of being impassible on foot without constant maintenance. Our 
standard for maintaining a section of trail is that the tread (where 
your foot meets the ground) should be a minimum of 0.5m and that the 
width at shoulder level should be 2m. In the occasional areas where we 
have trees, etc., we strive for about 3m vertical clearance so that an 
equestrian can get through. Being a designated wilderness, no power 
tools or wheeled vehicles are allowed so access is by hiking and work 
is performed with hand tools.


If you look to motor vehicle roads, width is of the traveled way, not 
of the right of way nor of the way cleared of vegetation (i.e. side 
drainage or shoulders, etc.). From that point of view, a trail width 
should likely be the tread width. But as noted by Daniel, a hiker with 
a big pack might be more interested in the width at pack/shoulder 
level (“loading gauge”).


The issues in mapping trail width in my area include:

 1. Chaparral is fast growing. So that 0.5m/2m width trail we fixed
today will shrink each rainy season and without maintenance is
likely to become impassible in maybe 5 years time.
 2. Trail maintenance teams are lucky to be able to clean up 2km of
trail in a session. So it takes multiple sessions to keep a
typical trail maintained and for any given trail those are
sessions occur over a number of years (we target areas where
things are worst).

The result is that trail width is highly variable both over the length 
of a trail and over time. If mapped in high detail, the width you map 
this hiking season will be wrong next year. Heck, it might even be 
wrong next month depending on what month of the year your did your survey.


For what it is worth, I don’t usually tag the width of the trails. 
Mostly for the above reasons: To do it properly I’d have to be taking 
very detailed field notes and have to re-survey each trail at least 
once a year. And even if I did that, when I look at the typical data 
consumer I see that they usually have stale OSM data so any attempt to 
keep OSM up to the day correct on field conditions wouldn’t be very 
useful anyway.



Cheers!
Tod



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Name of a route, if one exists.

May 23, 2020, 18:17 by winfi...@gmail.com:

> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson <> pelder...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot routes 
>> in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I am not 
>> doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored in proper 
>> tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data users/tools. 
>> There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done all over the 
>> globe. 
>>
>> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name tag. 
>> That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*. 
>>
>> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a 
>> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, note=*, 
>> comment=*. 
>>
>> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
>>
>> Another item is >> section number>> . This is often used when the route is 
>> split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the 
>> operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an 
>> ordering and sorting mechanism. 
>> Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in international 
>> (super)routes. 
>>
>> Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a proper 
>> tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
>>
>> Peter Elderson
>> ___
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Warin]

As it is the minimum width that will limit passage, I would prefer to 
see the minimum with tagged not the average width.


On 23/5/20 3:23 am, Daniel Westergren wrote:


In the short term, it's okay to tag an estimated, average width.
If it's 1 to 0.3 meters, use 0.5 - this still shows a difference
from a path which is 1.5 to 4 meters wide (which you might
estimate as 2.5 meters?).


Perhaps it could be added to the 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath that width is 
for the tread on the ground and that for sections that vary in width, 
break them down or estimate an average width? Then it will be more 
clear for mappers who are reading about how to use width for 
highway=path particularly.


I would also suggest that smoothness is added in the Tagging section 
of that page, as it's very helpful when smoothness for a path is 
added. For now, it's only in the "Useful combination" section and may 
be missed by many. And by the way, for StreetComplete it's now being 
discussed to filter for only highway=path|track that either has a 
smoothness tag with a value of bad or worse, or surface=ground or 
equivalent, when asking for MTB difficulty.


And lastly, what if something is also added for surface, to describe 
why it's an important tag to distinguish different kinds of paths from 
each other?


/Daniel


-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:22 AM Jake Edmonds via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

I’m going to throw this in rather randomly but the reason i
don’t tag width and surface is that the footpaths I’m mapping
vary widely. Getting wider and thinner and going from gravel
to dirt to sections with many trees roots. Plus the surface
tag is rather subjective.

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone


On 22 May 2020, at 17:48, Daniel Westergren mailto:wes...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Yeah, I think in terms of tagging we don't get further in
this discussion. But it has been very valuable to me. I've
done a couple of video tutorials about the basics of mapping
trails in OSM and the next one will be about what tags to use
and why.

They are in Swedish, but I'm planning to do English versions
later as well. It's probably been done before, but I guess we
need to use different ways in this widespread community to
reach mappers to get more useful data to work with.

And regarding rendering of surface... Yeah, both an advantage
and disadvantage of OSM is its diversity. What for many
sounds like the only logical way may conflict with the views
of others.

Great work with your rendering btw! I'd love to discuss more
about that outside of this mailing list, as I'm also helping
out with creating a custom rendering for trail running
purposes. OpenStreetMap is indeed very urban-centred still,
which brings me back to my opening lines of this thread, that
OSM hasn't caught up with how lots of people actually are
using it now, like routing and rendering for hiking, cycling
and running, areas where Google Maps etc. are and will
continue to be way behind.

Thanks for valuable input!!

/Daniel

Den fre 22 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Andy Townsend
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:

On 22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> And there actually seems to be a pull request finally
solving the
> paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!?
>
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137
>
> If that makes it to the default map it will certainly
help people to
> tag surface, because they will see that it makes sense.
>
>
I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound like it, but this
does read
somewhat as if rendering "surface" on paths is somehow
"obvious" and
"easy", and it's an "oversight" that the OSM Carto folks
haven't been
doing it since basically forever.

It's not - I think that pnorman's comment of

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399#issuecomment-596656115

still applies:

 > I'm of the opinion that the only way we can get the
cartographic
"space" to render unpaved surfaces is to drop something
else, like
access restriction rendering.

I think that there's another problem with the standard
style as well -
aside from surface rendering it's hugely biased towards
urban centres.
Looking at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856 you
can't see any 

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched - 
> I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to 
> sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, 
> and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a 
> sidewalk or playground way.
>
> Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up 
> runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.

Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
mean death.

Confusion on what to expect from wilderness trails abounds. Hardly a
year goes by without someone from New York City driving up to do one
of the Catskill or Adirondack trails, expecting something like a
developed trail in a suburban setting, and winding up dead, from
either a fall or hypothermia.

This is a `highway=footway surface=ground`:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/34048181 - a toddler can do it
with ease.

So is this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/65793193@N00/3183604743/ -
requires good physical condition, a head for heights, and some
technical hiking skills. Shorter hikers may be at a disadvantage.

And this: 
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oOi7vvpUt0Q/VJnktGwmMDI/BoY/xYpcKlxPPqI/s1600/DSC_3880.JPG
- requires winter mountaineering skills and a modicum of technical
equipment (at least snowshoes or skis, ski poles, crampons, ice axe).



-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Tod Fitch]

I was under the impression that the consensus was that a route name should be 
in a route relation that holds all the segments and that the segment names, if 
different from the route name, were on the segment.

Has that consensus changed or has my impression been wrong?

Cheers!
Tod

> On May 23, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The Route!
> 
> Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo  >:
> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
> 
> Polyglot
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson  > wrote:
> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot routes in 
> Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I am not doing 
> any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored in proper tags 
> and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data users/tools. There 
> must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done all over the globe.
> 
> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name tag. 
> That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.
> 
> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a 
> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, note=*, 
> comment=*.
> 
> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
> 
> Another item is section number. This is often used when the route is split in 
> sections, often according to the sectioning given by the operator/website. So 
> firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an ordering and sorting 
> mechanism.
> Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in international 
> (super)routes.
> 
> Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a proper 
> tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
> 
> Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[John Willis via Tagging]

=path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched - I 
am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to sidewalk, 
so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, and then 
apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a sidewalk or 
playground way. 

Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up runways 
and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way. 

Javbw

> On May 21, 2020, at 9:47 PM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 17:25, Daniel Westergren  wrote:
> 
>> Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the current 
>> status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more useful 
>> for forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are usually 
>> more up-to-date, to be honest). But the default rendering doesn't 
>> differentiate between a forest or mountain path and a paved, combined foot- 
>> and cycleway in an urban environment.
> 
> There are plenty of apps/maps out there which do differentiate this, so 
> that's not a tagging issue.
>  
>> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering 
>> is discussed elsewhere. But has there been any fruitful discussing on this 
>> topic that will help users to tag these clearly extremely different kinds of 
>> "paths" in a way that make them more useful for data consumers, as well as 
>> easier to differentiate for renderers?
>> 
>> Sure, tags like surface, width, trail_visibility can be used. But in most 
>> cases, highway=path is used with no additional tag. The JOSM presets for 
>> foot- and cycleways use foot|bicycle=designated, but that doesn't 
>> necessarily tell anything about the surface or size of the path, or even its 
>> importance in terms of usage by pedestrians, hikers and cyclists.
> 
> Those are very useful tags, plus smoothness and sac_scale.
> 
> You can also use foot=designated to indicated its signposted for walking or 
> foot=yes to indicate you are allowed to walk but not signed for walkers.
> 
> There are tags for ladders, rungs, ropes which are useful so less able people 
> can be informed if a trail features these obstacles.
> 
> The lifecycle prefix is good for tagging abandoned paths that have 
> significant regrowth and authorities have closed off and trying to regenerate.
> 
> You're right a highway=path without any other tags covers a wide range of 
> possibilities, that's why it's great if you can add other tags.
>  
>> When highway=path was introduced, forest trails were not widely mapped and 
>> not the main consideration when introducing the tag as a way to deal with 
>> cases when footway or cycleway could not be used.
> 
> The highway value describes what the path was built for, the other tags 
> mentioned tell you a lot more about the suitability of it.
>  
>> I realize this topic has been discussed extensively over the years. But  now 
>> more than ever OSM is becoming increasingly important for hikers, trail 
>> runners and MTB cyclists for whom a forest or mountain path is something 
>> completely different to an urban foot- or cycleway.
> 
> If you have any material suggestions, I'd be very keen to hear.
> 
> Disclaimer: I build a website and map for hiking using OSM 
> (beyondtracks.com/map) data and yes I do take into account sac_scale (path is 
> red when it's technical), trail visibility (sparser dot when the trail is 
> less visible), ladders, ropes and rungs.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 23, 2020, 20:41 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:31 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
>
>> It is extremely rare - if there is single access road to a private residence
>> then it is a driveway no matter whatever it is paved asphalt road or
>> something that requires tractor to pass.
>>
>> Maybe it would matter in case where there is one road used as driveway and
>> second road that may be used to access property but is unused, possibly due 
>> to
>> poor state.
>>
>> But that would because one functions as driveway and one not.
>> In case of people using worse-quality road as a driveway
>> and not using better quality road as a driveway
>> the tagging also should follow function and road used as driveway
>> should be tagged as driveway.
>>
>
> The case that I scratch my head over is a road whose primary purpose
> is farming or forestry, but that is also the path of access to
> someone's cabin.
>
OK, I agree that this one is tricky, and this case is more complicated.
I limited my discussion to single use roads (either track or driveway),
because I was trying to attack "something used solely as driveway
but low quality may not be tagged as a driveway" what is clearly wrong.

I forgot about this case where something is actually both driveway and both 
track.

>  You seem to be saying that the presence of a dwelling
> trumps all other uses, but that doesn't make sense to me.  Some of the
> cabins on inholdings in the forests around here are accessed by ATV or
> snowmobile, depending on the season, because the road has deteriorated
> beyond what a typical SUV can handle. (No, they don't get Amazon
> deliveries.)
>
This problem is just avoided by my formulation
(or maybe holiday cabin still counts as a residence?).

But in some cases you have one house or one isolated group of 
houses deep in a forest.

In this case I would say that last stage (road connecting this dwelling
to the forest track system) is highway=service, service=driveway,
without downgrading entire forest track system to a driveway status.

So maybe my claim should be
"something used solely or primarily as a driveway is a driveway,
no matter its physical characteristics (surface, lane count, smoothness,
access, ownership).

And therefore tagged as highway=service service=driveway"
?

>  I also don't want to say that a logging track is a
> residential driveway just because there's one guy with a parcel
> somewhere fifteen miles off the highway, when the only other traffic
> on the track is International Paper's trucks.
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

[Peter Elderson]

YM routes tagged as superroute? Or all routes with relation members?
Peter Elderson


Op za 23 mei 2020 om 21:08 schreef Jo :

> By the way, superroute relations in JOSM now show continuity correctly if
> the last node of the last way is the same as the first node of the first
> way in two sequential route relations. (It was a feature request I made and
> someone developed it).
>
> Jo
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 8:47 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> > For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers
>> or refs that are often in the name tag now.
>> > They are there to get neat ordered lists in tools and applications.
>> That seems to work fine, but it abuses the name tag, which I am told is a
>> problem for searching routines. A name tag should contain a proper name as
>> found on the street, and nothing else, that's the short version of some
>> very long rants I have encountered...
>> >
>> > At the moment, I move comments, descriptions, distance and trail refs
>> to the appropriate tags.
>> > From-via-to information I copy to the from, via and to tags.
>> > I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information
>> to.
>>
>> If the section number is an official identifier, then it's a ref (or
>> possibly an unsigned_ref). There should be no collision because
>> nothing keeps a superroute from having a ref of its own.
>>
>> If you're identifying a section number in order to sort the members of
>> a superroute, Don't Do That.  Keep the superroute in order.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 remains a worked
>> example; the sections are listed from south to north. Route relations
>> are ordered; they're not just buckets of members.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

[Peter Elderson]

The refs for the routes I check are sparse, but they are signed here and
there. The legs/sections  have the same ref, e.g. LAW12, but nowhere on the
streets can you find the section numbers. They are found on the official
website and in the printed guides. Sometimes they were added to the ref,
but then you get refs like LAW01-1-06A-1, showing on hiking maps
(Netherlands Coast Trail =LAW01, part 1, section 6 alternative, day 1).
That doesn't help anyone and just clobbers the map!

Just having 06A-1 as a ref is even worse for the user. The answer is to
keep the ref as LAW06, and put the section information in a section ref.
The two together can be used for ordered lists, the map just displays the
ref, and the section ref is helpful when editing/ordering the relation
hierarchy.

This does not solve the problem for international superroutes. These tend
to be more like collections of routes with very different
attrbutes and  tagging styles. But I think it does not hurt either. That
issue can be addressed later!

Peter Elderson


Op za 23 mei 2020 om 20:47 schreef Kevin Kenny :

> > For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers
> or refs that are often in the name tag now.
> > They are there to get neat ordered lists in tools and applications. That
> seems to work fine, but it abuses the name tag, which I am told is a
> problem for searching routines. A name tag should contain a proper name as
> found on the street, and nothing else, that's the short version of some
> very long rants I have encountered...
> >
> > At the moment, I move comments, descriptions, distance and trail refs to
> the appropriate tags.
> > From-via-to information I copy to the from, via and to tags.
> > I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information to.
>
> If the section number is an official identifier, then it's a ref (or
> possibly an unsigned_ref). There should be no collision because
> nothing keeps a superroute from having a ref of its own.
>
> If you're identifying a section number in order to sort the members of
> a superroute, Don't Do That.  Keep the superroute in order.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 remains a worked
> example; the sections are listed from south to north. Route relations
> are ordered; they're not just buckets of members.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

[Jo]

By the way, superroute relations in JOSM now show continuity correctly if
the last node of the last way is the same as the first node of the first
way in two sequential route relations. (It was a feature request I made and
someone developed it).

Jo

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 8:47 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> > For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers
> or refs that are often in the name tag now.
> > They are there to get neat ordered lists in tools and applications. That
> seems to work fine, but it abuses the name tag, which I am told is a
> problem for searching routines. A name tag should contain a proper name as
> found on the street, and nothing else, that's the short version of some
> very long rants I have encountered...
> >
> > At the moment, I move comments, descriptions, distance and trail refs to
> the appropriate tags.
> > From-via-to information I copy to the from, via and to tags.
> > I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information to.
>
> If the section number is an official identifier, then it's a ref (or
> possibly an unsigned_ref). There should be no collision because
> nothing keeps a superroute from having a ref of its own.
>
> If you're identifying a section number in order to sort the members of
> a superroute, Don't Do That.  Keep the superroute in order.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 remains a worked
> example; the sections are listed from south to north. Route relations
> are ordered; they're not just buckets of members.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Tagging-fr] [Talk-ml] [Talk-sn] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Marc M.]

Agree on what?
That leisure=common needs a replacement ? Yes.
that replacement must be different from what needs to be replaced ?
it seems logical to me but some people think that replacing a
depreciated tag by itself will solve the problems that led to its
depreciation.


Le 22.05.20 à 15:46, Jean-Marc Liotier a écrit :
> So, we are actually all in agreement, aren't we ?
> 
> Nous sommes donc tous d'accord, non ?
> 
> 
> On 5/3/20 6:00 PM, severin.menard wrote:
>> Oui désolé, en effet je me suis trompé sur la clé !
>>
>> Yes sorry, my mistake regarding the right key!
>>
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> Le dimanche 3 mai 2020 17:54, Pierre Béland via Talk-ml
>>  a écrit :
>>
>>> Fr
>>>
>>> Oups un instant Jean-Marc. Erreur sans doute de la part de Séverin,
>>> je disais bien
>>>  leisure=common
>>>
>>> En
>>>
>>> Oops a moment Jean-Marc. Probably a mistake on Séverin's part, I did
>>> say...
>>>  leisure=common
>>> */ /*
>>>
>>>
>>> Le dimanche 3 mai 2020 11 h 13 min 40 s UTC−4, Jean-Marc Liotier
>>>  a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> So, this discussion gravitates towards using landuse=common for those
>>> African urban freely accessible multipurpose open spaces, which I
>>> fully support.
>>>
>>> Implementing this change requires the following actions:
>>>
>>> - Editing the leisure=common wiki page, in French and in English
>>> (I'll do that)
>>>
>>> - Reinstating the rendering of leisure=common in downstream
>>> cartographic styles, would be even better if the color matched the
>>> surface=* so that sandy surfaces don't appear green.
>>>
>>> - Reinstating the rendering of leisure=common in JOSM's default style
>>> (it recently changed to grey to mark deprecation). (I'll open a JOSM
>>> ticket
>>>
>>> - Altering QA rules (JOSM Validator and Osmose) so that the
>>> leisure=common deprecation only applies to the United Kingdom of
>>> Great Britain, where commons have a legal definition and
>>> designation=common must be used for them. (I'll open a JOSM ticket
>>> but if someone has prior experience interacting with the Osmose
>>> people, that would be nice)
>>>
>>
> 
> ___
> Tagging-fr mailing list
> tagging...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging-fr
> 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

[Kevin Kenny]

> For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers or 
> refs that are often in the name tag now.
> They are there to get neat ordered lists in tools and applications. That 
> seems to work fine, but it abuses the name tag, which I am told is a problem 
> for searching routines. A name tag should contain a proper name as found on 
> the street, and nothing else, that's the short version of some very long 
> rants I have encountered...
>
> At the moment, I move comments, descriptions, distance and trail refs to the 
> appropriate tags.
> From-via-to information I copy to the from, via and to tags.
> I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information to.

If the section number is an official identifier, then it's a ref (or
possibly an unsigned_ref). There should be no collision because
nothing keeps a superroute from having a ref of its own.

If you're identifying a section number in order to sort the members of
a superroute, Don't Do That.  Keep the superroute in order.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 remains a worked
example; the sections are listed from south to north. Route relations
are ordered; they're not just buckets of members.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Peter Elderson]

True, this route relation business tends to get more complicated all the
time, because the reality is getting more complex all the time.

But, with care, a lot can be done. Consistent tagging, and nudging
exceptions back to the mainstream, will help applications and tools
developers to adapt, which in turn will help mappers to do the right thing.

Peter Elderson


Op za 23 mei 2020 om 20:29 schreef Kevin Kenny :

> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:46 PM Yves  wrote:
> > While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo that
> to know which country you're in, you should look at Your OSM Database!
> > Joke aside, such a cross border route makes a good candidate for a super
> route.
>
> On a cross-border super-route, the individual route relations could
> have name=* in the local language. The super-route can have 'name:en',
> 'name:fr', 'name:de'¸ etc., and I'm guessing that the governing
> authority of the super-route probably has a working language, and
> 'name=*' on the super-route can use it.
>
> I've used super-routes a few times for more pedestrian reasons. (Pun
> intended.)  They work well to organize things.  Often, there's a
> natural break into segments, even if the segments are informal. That's
> what I did with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 - cut
> the route at the county lines simply because the tools were struggling
> with a route relation having as many segments as it would have had
> otherwise.   Increasingly, tools such as Waymarked Trails recognize
> super-routes and do the correct hierarchical decomposition.
>
> 919642 also provides a worked example for having a route that follows
> segments of other routes. In many spots in the US, pride of place for
> naming and blazing belongs to the trail that was there first. so
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111804369 bears the name, "Devil's
> Path", not "Long Path", even though the Long Path is over ten times
> its length. Sometimes that goes to absurd lengths: I understand it's
> now been adjusted, but for decades,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389226405 was blazed as an approach
> trail to the Long Trail, because the Long Trail was the senior trail.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389226405 was blazed with the
> red-disc-on-a-white-square of the Ramapo-Dunderberg Trail and not the
> vertical-white-bar of the Appalachian Trail for the same reason.
> (Today, the latter way simply bears both blazes.) Generally speaking,
> the major long trails will be at least marked with their own blaze at
> junctions and signposts, but may simply carry the reassurance blazes
> of another trail. In the Devil's Path example, at
>
> https://www.nynjtc.org/sites/default/files/u9655/946523_10200476422125507_495296326_n.jpg
> you see the aqua disc of the Long Path nailed to the sign as an
> afterthought. The red disk of the Devil's Path takes precedence. Along
> the trail, rather than at junctions, you see just the red markers. as
> at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/1427814
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:31 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> It is extremely rare - if there is single access road to a private residence
> then it is a driveway no matter whatever it is paved asphalt road or
> something that requires tractor to pass.
>
> Maybe it would matter in case where there is one road used as driveway and
> second road that may be used to access property but is unused, possibly due to
> poor state.
>
> But that would because one functions as driveway and one not.
> In case of people using worse-quality road as a driveway
> and not using better quality road as a driveway
> the tagging also should follow function and road used as driveway
> should be tagged as driveway.

The case that I scratch my head over is a road whose primary purpose
is farming or forestry, but that is also the path of access to
someone's cabin. You seem to be saying that the presence of a dwelling
trumps all other uses, but that doesn't make sense to me.  Some of the
cabins on inholdings in the forests around here are accessed by ATV or
snowmobile, depending on the season, because the road has deteriorated
beyond what a typical SUV can handle. (No, they don't get Amazon
deliveries.) I also don't want to say that a logging track is a
residential driveway just because there's one guy with a parcel
somewhere fifteen miles off the highway, when the only other traffic
on the track is International Paper's trucks.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

[Peter Elderson]

For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers or
refs that are often in the name tag now.
They are there to get neat ordered lists in tools and applications. That
seems to work fine, but it abuses the name tag, which I am told is a
problem for searching routines. A name tag should contain a proper name as
found on the street, and nothing else, that's the short version of some
very long rants I have encountered...

At the moment, I move comments, descriptions, distance and trail refs to
the appropriate tags.
From-via-to information I copy to the from, via and to tags.
I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information to.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 23 mei 2020 om 19:59 schreef Jo :

> oh, I'm mapping public transport too much. I actually did mean to write
> superroute.
>
> Jo
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM Yves  wrote:
>
>> While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
>> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo that
>> to know which country you're in, you should look at Your OSM Database!
>> Joke aside, such a cross border route makes a good candidate for a super
>> route.
>> Yves
>>
>> Le 23 mai 2020 18:49:31 GMT+02:00, Jo  a écrit :
>>>
>>> So in the case of a route that passes through The Netherlands, Belgium
>>> and France, the part in The Netherlands and Flanders will have the same
>>> name (in Dutch)? And the parts in Wallonia and France will have the same
>>> name as well, but in French instead? No indication which country/region
>>> they are passing through?
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM Peter Elderson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
 Route!

 Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :

> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot
>> routes in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I
>> am not doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored 
>> in
>> proper tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data
>> users/tools. There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done 
>> all
>> over the globe.
>>
>> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name
>> tag. That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.
>>
>> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a
>> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, 
>> note=*,
>> comment=*.
>>
>> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
>>
>> Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route
>> is split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
>> operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an
>> ordering and sorting mechanism.
>> Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in
>> international (super)routes.
>>
>> Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a
>> proper tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
>>
>> Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:46 PM Yves  wrote:
> While the original question was about a good tag to record the section 
> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo that to 
> know which country you're in, you should look at Your OSM Database!
> Joke aside, such a cross border route makes a good candidate for a super 
> route.

On a cross-border super-route, the individual route relations could
have name=* in the local language. The super-route can have 'name:en',
'name:fr', 'name:de'¸ etc., and I'm guessing that the governing
authority of the super-route probably has a working language, and
'name=*' on the super-route can use it.

I've used super-routes a few times for more pedestrian reasons. (Pun
intended.)  They work well to organize things.  Often, there's a
natural break into segments, even if the segments are informal. That's
what I did with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 - cut
the route at the county lines simply because the tools were struggling
with a route relation having as many segments as it would have had
otherwise.   Increasingly, tools such as Waymarked Trails recognize
super-routes and do the correct hierarchical decomposition.

919642 also provides a worked example for having a route that follows
segments of other routes. In many spots in the US, pride of place for
naming and blazing belongs to the trail that was there first. so
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111804369 bears the name, "Devil's
Path", not "Long Path", even though the Long Path is over ten times
its length. Sometimes that goes to absurd lengths: I understand it's
now been adjusted, but for decades,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389226405 was blazed as an approach
trail to the Long Trail, because the Long Trail was the senior trail.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389226405 was blazed with the
red-disc-on-a-white-square of the Ramapo-Dunderberg Trail and not the
vertical-white-bar of the Appalachian Trail for the same reason.
(Today, the latter way simply bears both blazes.) Generally speaking,
the major long trails will be at least marked with their own blaze at
junctions and signposts, but may simply carry the reassurance blazes
of another trail. In the Devil's Path example, at
https://www.nynjtc.org/sites/default/files/u9655/946523_10200476422125507_495296326_n.jpg
you see the aqua disc of the Long Path nailed to the sign as an
afterthought. The red disk of the Devil's Path takes precedence. Along
the trail, rather than at junctions, you see just the red markers. as
at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/1427814

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Jo]

oh, I'm mapping public transport too much. I actually did mean to write
superroute.

Jo

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM Yves  wrote:

> While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo that
> to know which country you're in, you should look at Your OSM Database!
> Joke aside, such a cross border route makes a good candidate for a super
> route.
> Yves
>
> Le 23 mai 2020 18:49:31 GMT+02:00, Jo  a écrit :
>>
>> So in the case of a route that passes through The Netherlands, Belgium
>> and France, the part in The Netherlands and Flanders will have the same
>> name (in Dutch)? And the parts in Wallonia and France will have the same
>> name as well, but in French instead? No indication which country/region
>> they are passing through?
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM Peter Elderson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
>>> Route!
>>>
>>> Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
>>>
 In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?

 Polyglot

 On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson 
 wrote:

> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot
> routes in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I
> am not doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored 
> in
> proper tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data
> users/tools. There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done 
> all
> over the globe.
>
> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name
> tag. That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.
>
> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a
> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, 
> note=*,
> comment=*.
>
> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
>
> Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route
> is split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
> operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an
> ordering and sorting mechanism.
> Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in
> international (super)routes.
>
> Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a
> proper tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
>
> Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

>>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Yves]

While the original question was about a good tag to record the section number, 
whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo that to know which 
country you're in, you should look at Your OSM Database!
Joke aside, such a cross border route makes a good candidate for a super route.
Yves 

Le 23 mai 2020 18:49:31 GMT+02:00, Jo  a écrit :
>So in the case of a route that passes through The Netherlands, Belgium
>and
>France, the part in The Netherlands and Flanders will have the same
>name
>(in Dutch)? And the parts in Wallonia and France will have the same
>name as
>well, but in French instead? No indication which country/region they
>are
>passing through?
>
>Jo
>
>On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM Peter Elderson 
>wrote:
>
>> Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of
>The
>> Route!
>>
>> Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
>>
>>> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
>>>
>>> Polyglot
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot
 routes in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those
>names. I
 am not doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be
>stored in
 proper tags and is handled or scheduled by significant
>renderers/data
 users/tools. There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is
>done all
 over the globe.

 It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the
>name
 tag. That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.

 Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about
>a
 temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=,
>note=*,
 comment=*.

 A ref in the name: store in ref=*.

 Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route
>is
 split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
 operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its
>an
 ordering and sorting mechanism.
 Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in
 international (super)routes.

 Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a
 proper tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?

 Peter Elderson
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Jo]

I would say the route name goes on the routemaster relation. That way it's
possible to differentiate in the names of the route relations and make them
more specific. That's probably not what Peter is proposing though.

Jo

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:40 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> I was under the impression that the consensus was that a route name should
> be in a route relation that holds all the segments and that the segment
> names, if different from the route name, were on the segment.
>
> Has that consensus changed or has my impression been wrong?
>
> Cheers!
> Tod
>
> On May 23, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
> Route!
>
> Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
>
>> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot
>>> routes in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I
>>> am not doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored in
>>> proper tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data
>>> users/tools. There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done all
>>> over the globe.
>>>
>>> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name
>>> tag. That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.
>>>
>>> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a
>>> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, note=*,
>>> comment=*.
>>>
>>> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
>>>
>>> Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route is
>>> split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
>>> operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an
>>> ordering and sorting mechanism.
>>> Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in
>>> international (super)routes.
>>>
>>> Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a
>>> proper tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
>>>
>>> Peter Elderson
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Jo]

So in the case of a route that passes through The Netherlands, Belgium and
France, the part in The Netherlands and Flanders will have the same name
(in Dutch)? And the parts in Wallonia and France will have the same name as
well, but in French instead? No indication which country/region they are
passing through?

Jo

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
> Route!
>
> Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
>
>> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot
>>> routes in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I
>>> am not doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored in
>>> proper tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data
>>> users/tools. There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done all
>>> over the globe.
>>>
>>> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name
>>> tag. That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.
>>>
>>> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a
>>> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, note=*,
>>> comment=*.
>>>
>>> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
>>>
>>> Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route is
>>> split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
>>> operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an
>>> ordering and sorting mechanism.
>>> Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in
>>> international (super)routes.
>>>
>>> Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a
>>> proper tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
>>>
>>> Peter Elderson
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Peter Elderson]

Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
Route!

Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :

> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot
>> routes in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I
>> am not doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored in
>> proper tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data
>> users/tools. There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done all
>> over the globe.
>>
>> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name
>> tag. That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.
>>
>> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a
>> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, note=*,
>> comment=*.
>>
>> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
>>
>> Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route is
>> split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
>> operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an
>> ordering and sorting mechanism.
>> Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in international
>> (super)routes.
>>
>> Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a
>> proper tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
>>
>> Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Jo]

In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?

Polyglot

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot routes
> in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I am not
> doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored in proper
> tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data users/tools.
> There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done all over the
> globe.
>
> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name tag.
> That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.
>
> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a
> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, note=*,
> comment=*.
>
> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
>
> Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route is
> split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
> operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an
> ordering and sorting mechanism.
> Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in international
> (super)routes.
>
> Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a proper
> tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?
>
> Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

[Peter Elderson]

I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot routes
in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I am not
doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be stored in proper
tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data users/tools.
There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is done all over the
globe.

It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name tag.
That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.

Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a
temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, note=*,
comment=*.

A ref in the name: store in ref=*.

Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route is
split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an
ordering and sorting mechanism.
Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in international
(super)routes.

Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a proper
tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?

Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electric_bicycle and speed_pedelec

[Jan Michel]

The proposal for keywords for electric bicycles is now open for voting:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicycles


Thank you very much, people who participated in the discussion and
Thank you very much in advance for adding your vote!

Jan



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Tomas Straupis]

> Very well put! If I understand correctly, to do this without heavy 
> pre-processing,
> the information would have to be in the tags?
> Would it have to be in the tags of every individual way, or would a tag on
> an encompassing area (e.g. landuse=residential) be sufficient?

  Correct. Information would have to be on individual ways, because
say two identical parallel ways close to one another should have to be
reduced to one way.
  Even more: road network pruning is scale dependant, so additional
information could be multiplied by the number of scales required.
  Note: additional information on ways would have to be adjusted even
if the way itself does not change but information in surroundings
change. For example forest path can be placed on a map (in a middle
scale) but later removed after a parallel road is built alongside the
path (say 50m away from the path even without touching/influencing the
path itself).

  Therefore such tagging would go against OSM conventions.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Peter Elderson]

Tomas Straupis:

> 2020-05-23, št, 04:51 Jarek Piórkowski rašė:
> > See also: not rendering roads or hamlets in very sparsely populated
> > areas because we have one map style which needs to accommodate central
> > European densities.



>   OSM-Carto is a very well done DATA VISUALISATION. It is not a
> cartography. What you're asking cannot be done with only tagging as
> you will have ways which look exactly the same but will have to be
> removed in one place and will remain in the map in another place. What
> you're asking is accomplished in CARTOGRAPHY by "road network
> pruning". It checks density/class of roads and removes minor ones at
> the places of high density. It is one of cartographic generalisation
> functions. All important generalisation functions take additional
> heavy pre-processing and that is probably a reason why OpenStreetMap
> does not have any Cartography projects yet.
>
> Very well put! If I understand correctly, to do this without heavy
pre-processing, the information would have to be in the tags?
Would it have to be in the tags of every individual way, or would a tag on
an encompassing area (e.g. landuse=residential) be sufficient?



>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging