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

sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2020, at 18:14, Alan Mackie wrote: > > Last I heard it was "mostly harmless". the less dangerous an area is, the more the remaining dangers will be emphasized. Let’s tag normalized dangerousness ;-) Cheers Martin

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

On 9/6/20 12:15 am, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com : The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > The whole world is dangerous. Just label the entire planet as a hazard. > > Last I heard it was "mostly harmless". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > The whole world is dangerous. Just label the entire planet as a hazard. > > > railway=abandoned > hazard=tagging_discussions > +1 -- Paul

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

Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:32, brad <> bradha...@fastmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It >> would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in >> the US.  Same for

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:32, brad wrote: > I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It > would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in > the US. Same for grizzlys up north or snakes in the south. We have > signs warning of rodents carrying

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

I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in the US.  Same for grizzlys up north or snakes in the south.   We have signs warning of rodents carrying plague around here, should we tag that too? On

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 01:27, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As for tagging 'dangerous areas' .. areas that pose danger such as some > favelas cannot be tagged in OSM. I see the same logic applied to dangerous > areas caused by

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

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > As for tagging 'dangerous areas' .. areas that pose danger such as some > favelas cannot be tagged in OSM. I see the same logic applied to dangerous > areas caused by wildlife. Big difficulty in defining where to place cut-off

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

On 31/5/20 9:20 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Yes, there are 1000 things in the Australian bush that'll kill you :-), but none of them will actually eat you! (not even Drop Bears! https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/animals/mammals/drop-bear/ :-)) Same applies to (virtually?) all of

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

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 09:20:43AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 01:18, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > > > >> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:46:31 +0200 > > >> From: Daniel Westergren > > > > > >> *An additional

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

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 10:52, Tod Fitch wrote: > On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren wrote: >>> Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness >>> paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?

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

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren > wrote: > I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag > according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but

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

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 16:54, Tod Fitch wrote: > My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t > change any tagging”. I don’t find that helpful. > I fear your translation is correct. At least for tags as heavily used as highway=path and highway=track. Deprecating anything

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

On 02/06/2020 13:48, Volker Schmidt wrote: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren > wrote: I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag according to function.   A trail/path can have many users/functions,

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

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren wrote: > I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag >> according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but >> it's still a dirt path. >> > > Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt

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

> > I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag > according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but > it's still a dirt path. > Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another

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

On 5/31/20 3:34 AM, Daniel Westergren wrote: Ok, I took the liberty of drafting a proposal for a general description of how to map pathways (that is, all highways that are not for motor-vechicles). See

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

Always keeping two things in mind: 1. mappers must have a way to map it from survey, even if no other information is known, and leave further tagging to people who have this extra information: basic tagging from appearance. 2. Renderers and routers must do something with the basic-mapped object,

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

> > As I recall, a long time ago this thread started off with the concern > "people from the city might die on this hiking trail". Is that a > function or a physical characteristic? > That wasn't my main concern when starting the thread, but it was for others (which is why these kinds of

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

> you are touching on an essential misunderstanding in this conversation, a > misunderstanding that we encounter in many different discussions in OSM. > > Those " words that people normally would associate ...", i.e. "path", > "footway", "track", ... are *code* words, they do not have any

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

On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 03:16, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Ok, two things. > > Function vs physical characteristics > First, I've increasingly realized what's probably at the heart of this 12+ > years discussion, the enormous problem of interpreting > highway=path|footway|cycleway (just like is

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

Daniel, you wrote On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 09:18, Daniel Westergren wrote: > But words like path & footway is telling a different story and confusing > most mappers. > > And some say that highway=path either can mean a wilderness path or, if > used with foot/bicycle=designated, a combined, urban

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

Ok, I took the liberty of drafting a proposal for a general description of how to map pathways (that is, all highways that are not for motor-vechicles). See https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PtBPFDW3EHrBHl5sy8L-_5a0xNR1w-9YXt-gmfMB_M/edit?usp=sharing I find the wiki terrible for collaborations

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

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:17 PM Daniel Westergren wrote: > Should we close the discussion in this mailing list, continue in a smaller > format and then report back the concluding suggestions for confirmation > before implementing? Or is there still enough interest to keep the entire > discussion

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

Ok, two things. *Function vs physical characteristics* First, I've increasingly realized what's probably at the heart of this 12+ years discussion, the enormous problem of interpreting highway=path|footway|cycleway (just like is currently being discussed about highway=track) in two entirely

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

> On May 30, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Something else that I've just thought about & not sure whether it would need > to be mentioned - possibility of encountering dangerous wildlife? > > Yes, there are 1000 things in the Australian bush that'll kill you :-), but >

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

On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 20:13, Tod Fitch wrote: > I’ve spent too much time recently trying to figure out how to better > determine whether the ways I am rendering should be shown as an > urban/suburban walkway versus a non-urban hiking trail (intentionally not > using “footway” and “path” as

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

PS Was going to add that yes, I'd also be interested in working further on this concept! Thanks Graeme ___ 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

On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 01:18, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > On May 30, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > >> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:46:31 +0200 > >> From: Daniel Westergren > > > >> *An additional issue:* > >> 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with > mtb:scale) >

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

> On May 30, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Rob Savoye wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:46:31 +0200 >> From: Daniel Westergren > >> *An additional issue:* >> 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with mtb:scale) >> to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not

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

> On May 30, 2020, at 6:46 AM, Daniel Westergren wrote: > > Ok, I hope this will be my final post in this long thread. I will try to > summarize what I understand from the discussion as the main issuesa and what > needs to be addressed to make it easier for mappers and data consumers. > > I

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

> Ok, I hope this will be my final post in this long thread. I will try to > summarize what I understand from the discussion as the main issuesa and > what needs to be addressed to make it easier for mappers and data > consumers. > As said before, whatever you do to the tagging it will life more

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

> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:46:31 +0200 > From: Daniel Westergren > *An additional issue:* > 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with mtb:scale) > to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not the > route). But it's very geared towards alpine trails and

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

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:16 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > May 30, 2020, 15:46 by wes...@gmail.com: >> Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we use) >> or a way for non-specified/mixed use? > > way for non-specified/mixed use, that due to its unfortunate

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

May 30, 2020, 15:46 by wes...@gmail.com: > Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we use) > or a way for non-specified/mixed use? > way for non-specified/mixed use, that due to its unfortunate name is sometimes used and interpreted as indicating a wilderness trail

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

Ok, I hope this will be my final post in this long thread. I will try to summarize what I understand from the discussion as the main issuesa and what needs to be addressed to make it easier for mappers and data consumers. I would also suggest that instead of filling the inboxes of each and

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

Unfortunately it is more difficult to map properly the minor roads and ways, in comparison with the major roads. There much more variegated in appearance, in use, in rules ecc, and, at least in my part of the world there are also simply more in numbers. It is also correct that the available sets

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

May 28, 2020, 22:05 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > So I return to, 'what's the minimalist set of attributes that we can > use to guide a data consumer, and conversely, the minimum set of tags > that a data consumer needs to recognize?' Specifying every attribute > in excruciating detail is fine

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

Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 22:07, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > My very first attempts at editing with JOSM, some years ago, were > adding hiking paths. I followed JOSM's templates, with > 'Highways->Ways->Path' appearing to be a natural match, and got > `highway=path foot=designated etc.` for the

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

My very first attempts at editing with JOSM, some years ago, were adding hiking paths. I followed JOSM's templates, with 'Highways->Ways->Path' appearing to be a natural match, and got `highway=path foot=designated etc.` for the constructed path. I uploaded the result. Another mapper gave me a

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

Hello, That's crazy how much people get confused about the triplets path/footway/cycleway highway=path for mixed path highway=footway for foot path highway=cycleway for cycle path Nothing to do with surface, localization, or whatever other properties, just there main usage. We should not map

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

On 27/5/20 11:42 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote: What has been proposed is to add a new way of tagging of what with the present tagging could be:described with highway=path plus sac_scale=hiking with a new combination of highway=path plus path=hiking I don't think that will help. Replacing

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

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 20:34, Daniel Westergren wrote: > And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in >> practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as >> the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it. >> > > This

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

When I used the term ""hiking" path" that was meant inclusive of bicycle (MTB) use, an , in most countries also horses. The default access settings for path in most countries are foot, bicycle, horse On Wed, 27 May

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

May 27, 2020, 20:31 by wes...@gmail.com: > Fine with JOSM messing up combined foot- and cycleways (I tried to look, but > couldn't find an issue tracker to discuss that misbehaviour with the JOSM > developers). > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/report available vie "view tickets" tabs at JOSM

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

> > And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in > practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as > the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it. > This is likely the default way of interpreting highway=path with

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

> On May 27, 2020, at 6:42 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > This does not describe the situation > highway=footway is "urban", implies foot=designated, usage can be expanded > with tags like bicycle=yes|permisive||designated to describe mid-use ways > > highway=cycleway implies bicycle=designated,

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

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:15, Andrew Harvey wrote: > The way I see it is there are two main views of highway=footway,path in > OSM. > > 1. Is that footway is urban and path is remote/forest > 2. Is that footway is for primary walking paths (including remote/forest > paths) and that path is for

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

Just to demonstrate that "hiking" paths with sac_scale=mountain_hiking properties and combined foot-cycleways are not mutually exclusive: a real-world Mapillary shot from Padova, a bustling city in the flatlands of the Po Valley (not

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

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 17:15, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can > be a path. > > I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant > attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path... >

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

Daniel Westergren: > And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because > then it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway. > Sorry that's too strict. I often can't tell from the pavement what the use or access is. Lots of paths get an asphalt layer for ease of maintenance,

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

> Would it be wrong to set sac_scale=hiking on an urban footway? I’m worried > that we’ll get highway=path, foot=designated, cycle=designated, > surface=paved, width=2.5, lit=yes, rubbish_bins_every=100m, > sac_scale=hiking. > Same with mtb:scale. A footway or cycleway should, in my opinion,

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

sent from a phone > On 27. May 2020, at 12:44, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > What we are discussing now is how to make sure that a hiking path (not a > foot-cycle-way) is tagged correctly as such. can you explain what you mean by the word hiking path? Is it about the purpose (only useful for

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

> 27 maj 2020 kl. 12:42 skrev Volker Schmidt : > > > > […]how to indicate that a path is a hiking trail. It has been proposed to > introduce a new value path=trail or path=hiking for that purpose. > As we do already have the sac_scale tagging for level of difficulty of hiking > paths and

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

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:30, Daniel Westergren wrote: > To confuse things more (or maybe less...), I just realized that iD is > using highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated for a "Cycle > and foot path". But in JOSM, the preset for the same is using > highway=path... Similarly,

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

To confuse things more (or maybe less...), I just realized that iD is using highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated for a "Cycle and foot path". But in JOSM, the preset for the same is using highway=path... Similarly, iD is using highway=footway as default for a sidewalk. So

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

> On May 26, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For me highway=footway and highway=path without any other tags are the same > thing. Introducing yet another tag for similar paths/footways may lead to > more confused tagging of these things. > I think the use of sub

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

Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can be a path. I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path... In Sweden, 99% of all cycleways are open to pedestrians and there

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

> 27 maj 2020 kl. 06:54 skrev Yves : > […] > I'm as fool as you, and always mapped the paved, urban-style as > highway=footway and the ones in the wilderness as highway =path. > So have I, and so have, as far as I can tell from the areas I am familiar with, most mappers in Sweden. Not all

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

Le 27 mai 2020 06:27:42 GMT+02:00, Tod Fitch a écrit : > > >> On May 26, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >For me footway [1] and path [2] are distinctly different. The photos >are from a blog post of mine regarding rendering of trail distances >[3]. > >Cheers! >Tod >

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

On 26/5/20 9:49 pm, Peter Elderson wrote: Richard Fairhurst: highway=mountain_path works for me for tagging mountain paths. Along that line, to retag all the unpaved highway=path's in Nederland with something more specific, we would need at least forest_path, dune_path, heath_path,

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

> On May 26, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > May 26, 2020, 20:50 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > Yes! We have an overload of tags for trails, many poorly defined, many > rarely used. KISS - keep it simple stupid. I think it would help if we > narrowed the

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

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 04:54, brad wrote: > > How about this, as default: > cycleway - paved path that a typical tourist or casual rider can ride on a > road bike. > footway - smooth path, very firm surface or paved that is good for someone > with less than average ability. > bridleway- for

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

May 26, 2020, 20:50 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > Yes!  We have an overload of tags for trails, many poorly defined, many > rarely used.   KISS -  keep it simple stupid.  I think it would help if we > narrowed the focus for cycleway and footway. > How about this, as default: > cycleway -

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

On 5/26/20 8:26 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:59 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: From what I can tell, the ask is a tag for a specific type of way which the person needs experience or preparedness before undertaking. But I'm lost and still not completely understanding what

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

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:59 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > From what I can tell, the ask is a tag for a specific type of way which the > person needs experience or preparedness before undertaking. But I'm lost and > still not completely understanding what exactly this new tag would cover > exactly

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

Since the name effects how the tag is used, the name is not irrelevant On 5/26/20 4:57 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote: Exactly the name of any tag in OSM is completely irrelevant, it's as you say how it's used and documented which matters. The iD editor chooses to localise and abstract away the

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

May 26, 2020, 12:52 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > 26 maj 2020 kl. 11:33 skrev Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> >: > >> >> We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting >> ... >> I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is >>

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

Richard Fairhurst: > highway=mountain_path works for me for tagging mountain paths. > Along that line, to retag all the unpaved highway=path's in Nederland with something more specific, we would need at least forest_path, dune_path, heath_path, grass_quai and peat_path. highway=path in

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

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 19:35, Volker Schmidt wrote: > We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting > ... > I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is > lost?) > To me a highway=path is a concept that is well defined in the wiki, and

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

26 maj 2020 kl. 11:33 skrev Volker Schmidt : > > We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting ... > I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is > lost?) > To me a highway=path is a concept that is well defined in the wiki, and the >

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

Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > That said, my favourite solution here would indeed be to add a new > main tag highway=trail and slowly retag the existing mountain > paths starting with the most dangerous/abused ones. Fully agree with this, other than the slight detail that =trail is the wrong value.

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

We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting ... I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is lost?) To me a highway=path is a concept that is well defined in the wiki, and the various types can be described with existing tags. A hiking

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

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 17:28, Arne Johannessen wrote: > Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > I took the liberty of revising the English translation in > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Values to something > > that I hope will be more helpful to English speakers. > > Overall, this

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

Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I took the liberty of revising the English translation in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Values to something > that I hope will be more helpful to English speakers. Overall, this seems like an improvement to me. However, I note that the translation

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

I meant in my area On 5/25/20 3:47 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 25, 2020, 20:34 by bradha...@fastmail.com: 'm not sure anyone maps sidewalks. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.24167/21.01532=N https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/footway=sidewalk (only part of

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

May 25, 2020, 20:34 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > 'm not sure anyone maps sidewalks. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.24167/21.01532=N https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/footway=sidewalk (only part of separately mapped sidewalks has it)

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

> The fact that they thought it was a good idea to munge path and footway together is partially what got us into this mess My understanding is that mappers were already using highway=footway and highway=path in overlapping ways. In Indonesia, there does not seem to be any consistency about

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

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 03:03:40PM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:42 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > The SAC scale grades 1-3 are quite helpful. It's just the blue scales 4-6 > > which are not really applicable in OSM because very few routes of that > > scale would fall under

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

I think I agree with what Kevin is saying, but I confess I'm not sure what the problem is.   In my area, even looking at a nearby big city,  most of the 'paths' are dirt trails.   There are some cycleways too.   I'm not sure anyone maps sidewalks. I think the fundamental problem is the original

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

I took the liberty of revising the English translation in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Values to something that I hope will be more helpful to English speakers. Some of the phrases had obviously been machine-translated - the worst was most likely 'single plainly climbing up to

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

> > For example around me a "Fire Trail" is tagged as highway=track, and a > "Track" (as in a remote forest/bush walking path) is tagged as > highway=footway/path (probably what you're proposing as "trail". So we need > definitions that can be applied globally regardless of how things are >

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

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 19:44, John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > Javbw > > On May 25, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > > We do have that: `sac_scale=hiking` > > > And that is a good example of bad tagging I want to correct. > > There are more people

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

Javbw > On May 25, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > >> We do have that: `sac_scale=hiking` And that is a good example of bad tagging I want to correct. There are more people walking local wilderness trails with their dog in a single day than all “backpackers” on earth in a year.

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

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 11:54, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:01 PM John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > Mapping “where the sidewalk ends” and the trails begin is vital to keep > people from being routes where grandma could have a heart attack Climbing a > difficult route or

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

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:01 PM John Willis via Tagging wrote: > Mapping “where the sidewalk ends” and the trails begin is vital to keep > people from being routes where grandma could have a heart attack Climbing a > difficult route or break her leg crossing a stream because we routed her on a

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

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 05:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > At the higher levels of difficulty, the page focuses on mountain > hazards. There's no consideration for slippery or unstable bog > bridging, stream crossings (rock-hop or ford: and how deep or > fast-moving is the water?); deep mud or

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

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 00:31, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Well said John. When we now have highway=path, we need a subtag. > > Question is, on what criteria would we differentiate a trail from another > "path"? Groomed vs beaten may not be specific enough. But by using some > combination of

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

> "Path (is) a trail for the use of, or worn by, pedestrians". > So path=trail does not work semantically anyway. Path: tied to man-made landuses& amenities in general. Trail: tied to natural landuses, in general. A path is tied to urban/suburban/rural landuses: an urban route for

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

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 20:15, Kevin Kenny wrote: The absence of a tag `potrzebie=*` doesn't mean 'there's no potrzebie > here'; it means only `the mapper didn't say anything about potrzebie.' > Drawing the conclusion that 'there's no potrzebie' would require an > explicit `potrzebie=no` or some

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

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:53 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > This proposal is not going to fly, unfortunately. As I said before the big > issue, at least in central Europe, is the massiv use of highway=path (with > the additional "designated" tags) for foot-cycleways. We will have to live > with

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

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:42 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: > [Australian grading of hiking trails] > > And all five of those grades are sac_scale=hiking, which is why I say > > that's an impossible scale to use for the purpose we're

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

Path and trail are confusingly near in meaning. The first Google search result on the difference between the meaning of path and trail says *: *"*Pat**h** (is) a trail* for the use of, or worn by, pedestrians". So path=trail does not work semantically

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

Well said John. When we now have highway=path, we need a subtag. Question is, on what criteria would we differentiate a trail from another "path"? Groomed vs beaten may not be specific enough. But by using some combination of dictionary definitions of trail, in the sense of path, could we come up

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

The sac=scale is a attribute of trails. Yet we do not explicitly state “this is a trail” We should have a path=trail subtag. The presence or absence of a sac_scale Tag shouldn’t mean it is a trail. Imagine we had no highway=track. That we dumped all tracks into highway=service. That is

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

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:52 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > > 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

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

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 16:29, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Great discussion! I think we're discussing two different things here. One > is about differentiating *trail* (not necessarily hiking trail) from > other kinds of highway=path and the other is about *difficulty of a > (hiking) trail* in

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

Great discussion! I think we're discussing two different things here. One is about differentiating *trail* (not necessarily hiking trail) from other kinds of highway=path and the other is about *difficulty of a (hiking) trail* in terms of how technical and demanding it is (and thus who can use it

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

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

  1   2   >