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

[Tod Fitch]

> 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 
> 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 Western Europe, but how about North America, 
> Africa, Asia & so on? Do we have / need a way of tagging that bears (or 
> whatever) may be encountered while walking in this area?
> 

Just about every trail head in my local area has warning signs about 
rattlesnakes and mountain lions [1]. One of the local county operated 
wilderness parks was closed this week because of mountain lion sightings.

But for the moment my goal is not tagging for dangerous wildlife but rather how 
can a mapper simply indicate that the way is a non-urban hiking (and possibly 
mountain biking and equestrian) trail.

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 words for this). For straight rendering it doesn’t seem to be too big a deal 
if I get it slightly wrong, the map just looks uglier than I’d like.

But I am trying to display accurate mileage numbers on hiking trails and that 
means combining ways that are, for my purposes, functionally equivalent 
descriptions of a hiking trail: I really don’t want the distance between 
changes in width or surface or even bridges, so I need to “heal” those edges in 
my graph based on a simple hiking_trail=yes|no check. My 
Postgresql/PostGIS/osmfilter/osm2pgrouting skills aren’t great so I am probably 
missing something. But all the ways I’ve come with to munge the various 
surface/sac_scale/width/trail_visibility/width/etc. combinations into a simple 
“this is a hiking trail or not” are neither accurate nor fast to run on tagging 
I am finding in the field. There just has to be a better way to map these 
things!

Cheers!
Tod

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar



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

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

[Alan Mackie]

On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 16:55, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> As far as I can tell, `tracktype` is mostly intended for surface
> firmness: how likely are you to sink if you drive it in wet weather?
> If I'm not doing a field survey in mud season, it's hard to tell.
> Everythiing from grade3 to grade5 will have vegetation growing on it.
> In the ruts, I'll see at least some hard material because the soil
> around here is stony.  (Around here, too, grade1 is likely to be at
> least `highway=service`, since nobody troubles to seal a track that's
> used just for tractors or logging trucks.) I also don't see a lot of
> ways with `tracktype` in my part of the world, so I don't have good
> local examples to go on.
>
The main benefit I see to it is the presence or absence of ruts. These may
act as an additional impediment to turning, cause ground clearance issues
or collect water. Softness seems to be covered by detailed enough surface
tags. A tag for the profile of the cross-section could supersede it
entirely if surface and smoothness are also included. For paved roads it
might also include values for whether there is a (noticeable) crown or
banking, or if the sides slope down to a central drain as is reasonably
common in setts.
___
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

[Jarek Piórkowski]

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 words for this).

I realize this might not apply to your map, but just to give people
discussing path/trail semantics another data point:
urban ravine/hillside areas like
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/pcIl9nspFIi38uEDY5q_OA (this one is
300 m from a normal low-density neighbourhood) or
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/hHkS__YTVtqWYcg-l4kMGQ (this is up to
1 km walk in any direction from a "normal" urban street with a
sidewalk) or https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/rjjuiRG0giyX_kufNrX_mA
(300 m from a normal mid-density neighbourhood)

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

[Alan Mackie]

On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 18:23, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 04:10:42PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> > I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and
> more
> > cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to
> > "highway=track".  For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the
>
> I am fighting for this now 10+ years and its a hard fight. I live in the
> countryside and regularly people show up, retagging everything to track.
> Most of the times its people living far away in pretty urban areas.
>
> The open issues for rendering surface and/or smoothness on OSM-carto have
stalled, but it might help fight this. It is often used as a proxy for
"four wheel drive preferred". I am guilty of this myself in tagging
semi-abandoned construction.


> I found the description of what a track is good. All osm wiki articles
> for highways classes miss the point "When does this _not_ apply".
>
> For tracks i have simple criteria when it cant be a track:
>
> - residential buildings (or used for reaching them)
> - (school) buses
> - garbage collection trucks
> - postal services
>
> If anything is seen on that road it cant be a track. A track is defined
> as a road for exclusive or mostly agricultural usage. So as soon as
> there is a single residential building the amount of traffic for that
> building outweights the amount of agricultural traffic by orders.
>
> So a farms driveway is also not a track.
>
> Those last three seem a good inclusion in the rather wordy  highway=track
versus other classes of highway=*

section on the wiki. Your blunter title might help too. Most
tracktype=grade1 are probably highly suspicious.
___
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]

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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)
> >> to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not the
> >> route). But it's very geared towards alpine trails and there is not
> enough
> >> nuance in the lowest levels.
> >
> >  As a climber, I don't think we'd want to apply YDS to hiking trails.
> > To me, YDS should only used for technical routes requiring equipment
> > (usually).
>
> As a Sierra Club member in Southern California (where the YDS originated
> long before my time), a hiker and a former climber I must mention that 1,
> 2, 3, and 4 on the YDS are basically levels of difficulty in hiking.
> Climbers really only work with 5 and its various subdivisions. Ruling out
> the whole scale simply because one level of it is dedicated to climbing is
> a bit much.
>
> OTOH, the Australians have a bush walking scale that does not, from what
> I’ve seen, include levels for climbing so that might be choice that does
> not automatically connote a different outdoor activity.
>

So would we try & combine a walking scale & a climbing / alpine scale into
one, or have two scales?

Two would probably make a lot more sense, with "Walking / Hiking" 1 - 5,
then sac starting at about 4/5.

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
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 Western Europe, but how about North America,
Africa, Asia & so on? Do we have / need a way of tagging that bears (or
whatever) may be encountered while walking in this area?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. May 2020, at 19:23, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> For tracks i have simple criteria when it cant be a track:
> 
> - residential buildings (or used for reaching them)
> - (school) buses
> - garbage collection trucks
> - postal services
> 
> If anything is seen on that road it cant be a track. A track is defined
> as a road for exclusive or mostly agricultural usage. So as soon as
> there is a single residential building the amount of traffic for that
> building outweights the amount of agricultural traffic by orders.
> 
> So a farms driveway is also not a track.


+1, I do it exactly the same for distinguishing tracks from other road types. I 
often see farm driveways mapped as tracks, but IMHO these are driveways.


Cheers Martin 
___
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

[Tod Fitch]

> 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 the
>> route). But it's very geared towards alpine trails and there is not enough
>> nuance in the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS),
>> Australian Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on
>> sac_scale?
> 
>  As a climber, I don't think we'd want to apply YDS to hiking trails.
> To me, YDS should only used for technical routes requiring equipment
> (usually). I think "mountain_hiking" is what you can do without
> equipment, even if occasionally using your hands for balance.
> "alpine_hiking" is when I'm up near or above treeline, often in snow or
> large scree fields. A fuzzier category are climber access trails that
> most hikers shouldn't use. We have many of those around here.

As a Sierra Club member in Southern California (where the YDS originated long 
before my time), a hiker and a former climber I must mention that 1, 2, 3, and 
4 on the YDS are basically levels of difficulty in hiking. Climbers really only 
work with 5 and its various subdivisions. Ruling out the whole scale simply 
because one level of it is dedicated to climbing is a bit much.

OTOH, the Australians have a bush walking scale that does not, from what I’ve 
seen, include levels for climbing so that might be choice that does not 
automatically connote a different outdoor activity.

> 
>> Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interested in
>> continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this
>> mailing list?
> 
>  I'd be interested in a working group on this, as my map data and maps
> are used by multiple rural fire departments and SAR groups. You wouldn't
> be surprised by how many people we rescue that misjudged the trail
> difficulty... For us though, looking at the subtags helps determine the
> type of response and equipment. sac_scale is a bit open to
> interpretation based on one's experience, but better than nothing.
> 



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

[Tod Fitch]

> 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 would also suggest that instead of filling the inboxes of each and everyone 
> on this tagging list, we create a smaller "working group" that can come up 
> with a concrete suggestion to solve the major issues. What do you think about 
> that? Who would like to work with such a proposal?
> 
> Major issues, as I understand it:
> How do we treat highway=path and highway=footway that has no additional tags?
> Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we use) or a 
> way for non-specified/mixed use? That is, are we talking about the physical 
> characteristics of a way or its function? Btw, this would likely mean that 99 
> % of path/footway/cycleway in Sweden should be path, if the latter 
> interpretation is to be used.
> #1 & #2 makes it really difficult for data consumers, they have to depend on 
> (often non-existing) subtags.
> Additional tags must be used to denote accessibility for pedestrians/cyclists 
> of ordinary ability, that is "this is NOT a hiking trail/wilderness trail!. 
> But which would these tags be?
> Additional tags must also be used to tell !this IS a wilderness trail! (or 
> whatever term we use).
> 
> Subtags
> To specify the physical characteristics of a highway=path or highway=footway 
> we have a multitude of tags, with no particular recommendation about which 
> ones must or should be used (see #4 & #5 above): surface, smoothness, width, 
> trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and possibly incline.
> 
> 
> 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 there is not enough nuance in 
> the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), Australian 
> Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on sac_scale?
> 
> 
> What needs to be done?
> We have to rely on subtags...
> We need to decide what subtags to be used to tell this is an accessible path 
> or this is a wilderness trail.
> We need a way to better nuance hiking trails.
> Documention needs to be much more clear and specific, in order for mappers 
> and data consumers to really know when different kinds of highway tags should 
> be used and what subtags must/should be used.
> Editors need to be improved to encourage tagging that will make it easier for 
> data consumers.
> Better default rendering of non-urban paths, to encourage the use of 
> mentioned subtags.
> 
> Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interestet in 
> continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this 
> mailing list?
> 
> /Daniel
> 

This seems to be an accurate summary of the discussion so far.

As a hiker who both maps and renders maps for hiking, I am interested in 
getting this area of tagging improved and would be willing to exchange emails 
among a smaller group.

Thank you for the summary!

Tod




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

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi,

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 04:10:42PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and more
> cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to
> "highway=track".  For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the
> area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been
> changed to "highway=track", when at least most of them should be
> "highway=residential."  What can be done to better communicate that OSM has
> a functional highway classification system (I did leave a change set
> comment, but I doubt it will do any good)?

I am fighting for this now 10+ years and its a hard fight. I live in the
countryside and regularly people show up, retagging everything to track.
Most of the times its people living far away in pretty urban areas.

I found the description of what a track is good. All osm wiki articles
for highways classes miss the point "When does this _not_ apply".

For tracks i have simple criteria when it cant be a track:

- residential buildings (or used for reaching them)
- (school) buses
- garbage collection trucks
- postal services

If anything is seen on that road it cant be a track. A track is defined
as a road for exclusive or mostly agricultural usage. So as soon as
there is a single residential building the amount of traffic for that
building outweights the amount of agricultural traffic by orders.

So a farms driveway is also not a track.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:44 AM Alan Mackie  wrote:
> I think part of the problem with the highway=track description is that even 
> when you are there on the ground it isn't always clear what it's being used 
> for. They are often two ruts in the ground disappearing of into the distance 
> with little else to go on. If you then look at aerial imagery you may see 
> that is goes to a single house and re-tag as driveway or that it serves 
> multiple buildings and guess at whether the buildings lean towards 
> highway=residential, highway=service or highway=unclassified. It's easy to 
> say "primarily agricultural or forestry" but this is often rather difficult 
> to verify.

And likely, no user cares very much. When it's just two ruts going off
into the distance, if it's part of the road network (you use it to
access multiple establishments or as a connection between other roads)
it's probably an `unclassified` highway.  If it's used just to get to
a house or two, it's a driveway. If it's used for mining, quarrying,
or similar industrial uses, or to access facilities like boat
launches, it's a service way. If it's used for farming or forestry,
it's a track. Except for 'unclassified', which is a hint to a router
that this is the way to multiple places, the only people who actually
care what sort of establishment the track serves are the residents,
workers, customers and guests of the respective establishments. They
already know why the road is there! Sure, if you know the reason the
road was built and want to map it, go ahead, but recognize that it
doesn't really tell people all that much.

> There is then a separate problem in that OSM-carto, the default 'check that 
> it worked' renderer, doesn't render road surfaces or tracktypes for anything 
> other than tracks. This discourages the 'proper' tagging for those who want 
> to tell at a glance how likely they are to get their car stuck or how likely 
> it is that they will be able to do a three point turn if there are 
> obstructions.
>
> Tangentially, I have always found the tracktypes a little difficult to apply 
> if you don't have the type of soil depicted in the examples. Some ground 
> tends to get "lumpier" rather than softer if you keep using it without 
> improvement.

Hmm. I don't think I've ever tagged a tracktype. When I'm trying to be
careful about the details, I tag surface and smooothness, add width if
it looks to be a problem for turning around, and hope for the best. I
also have occasionally used an unpopular and unwikified value like
`surface=shale`.  That can be very rough and lumpy indeed when it's
laid, but over time the shale weathers to smaller flakes of stone
mixed with fine clay, and in dry weather a shale road can offer a fine
compacted surface that doesn't even need to be rolled that often.

As far as I can tell, `tracktype` is mostly intended for surface
firmness: how likely are you to sink if you drive it in wet weather?
If I'm not doing a field survey in mud season, it's hard to tell.
Everythiing from grade3 to grade5 will have vegetation growing on it.
In the ruts, I'll see at least some hard material because the soil
around here is stony.  (Around here, too, grade1 is likely to be at
least `highway=service`, since nobody troubles to seal a track that's
used just for tractors or logging trucks.) I also don't see a lot of
ways with `tracktype` in my part of the world, so I don't have good
local examples to go on.
-- 
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

[Volker Schmidt]

> 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 difficult
for data consumers,  because you cannot redo the existing hiking network in
OSM.
We may work on explaining better to mappers (wiki) how to use the *existing*
zoo of tags.


> I would also suggest that instead of filling the inboxes of each and
> everyone on this tagging list, we create a smaller "working group" that can
> come up with a concrete suggestion to solve the major issues. What do you
> think about that? Who would like to work with such a proposal?
>

I don't know if we need a working group, we should in any case document
what we are doing in one of the existing  formats: wiki discussion page;
mailing list, forum. Working group sounds nice, but we would need to be
extremely careful with documenting the discussion

Your list below is missing the most important goal: compatibility with the
existing data.

It is extremely important to take into account that there are parts of the
world where most of the hiking paths and tracks are already mapped. That
mapping can be improved both from the geometry point of view as well as
adding information, but always using the existing set of tags.

I am happy to participate in the work.


> *Major issues*, as I understand it:
>
>1. How do we treat highway=path and highway=footway that has no
>additional tags?
>2. Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we
>use) or a way for non-specified/mixed use? That is, are we talking about
>the physical characteristics of a way or its function? *Btw, this
>would likely mean that 99 % of path/footway/cycleway in Sweden should be
>path, if the latter interpretation is to be used.*
>3. #1 & #2 makes it really difficult for data consumers, they have to
>depend on (often non-existing) subtags.
>4. Additional tags must be used to denote accessibility for
>pedestrians/cyclists of ordinary ability, that is "this is NOT a hiking
>trail/wilderness trail!. But which would these tags be?
>5. Additional tags must also be used to tell !this IS a wilderness
>trail! (or whatever term we use).
>
>
> *Subtags*
> To specify the physical characteristics of a highway=path or
> highway=footway we have a multitude of tags, with no particular
> recommendation about which ones must or should be used (see #4 & #5 above):
> surface, smoothness, width, trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and
> possibly incline.
>
>
> *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 there is not enough
> nuance in the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS),
> Australian Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on
> sac_scale?
>
>
> *What needs to be done?*
>
>1. We have to rely on subtags...
>2. We need to decide what subtags to be used to tell this is an
>accessible path or this is a wilderness trail.
>3. We need a way to better nuance hiking trails.
>4. Documention needs to be much more clear and specific, in order for
>mappers and data consumers to really know when different kinds of highway
>tags should be used and what subtags must/should be used.
>5. Editors need to be improved to encourage tagging that will make it
>easier for data consumers.
>6. Better default rendering of non-urban paths, to encourage the use
>of mentioned subtags.
>
>
> Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interestet in
> continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this
> mailing list?
>
> /Daniel
>


>
>
>
>
> Den fre 29 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Volker Schmidt :
>
>> 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 of tags of keys are not
>> orthogonal, but whatever we invent in additional new tagging, won't make
>> the existing tagging go away. So whatever we add, we make life for data
>> consumers even more complicated. And redefining the meaning of the existing
>> tags is also out of the question.
>> What we can do is to improve the documentation, which is overlapping and
>> dispersed abd, maybe, we can do better in documenting country-specific
>> tagging traditions, but not more.
>> Also when doing so we have to avoid absolutely anything that my appear to
>> be wiki fiddling.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
___
Tagging 

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

[Rob Savoye]

> 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 there is not enough
> nuance in the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS),
> Australian Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on
> sac_scale?

  As a climber, I don't think we'd want to apply YDS to hiking trails.
To me, YDS should only used for technical routes requiring equipment
(usually). I think "mountain_hiking" is what you can do without
equipment, even if occasionally using your hands for balance.
"alpine_hiking" is when I'm up near or above treeline, often in snow or
large scree fields. A fuzzier category are climber access trails that
most hikers shouldn't use. We have many of those around here.

> Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interested in
> continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this
> mailing list?

  I'd be interested in a working group on this, as my map data and maps
are used by multiple rural fire departments and SAR groups. You wouldn't
be surprised by how many people we rescue that misjudged the trail
difficulty... For us though, looking at the subtags helps determine the
type of response and equipment. sac_scale is a bit open to
interpretation based on one's experience, but better than nothing.

- rob -

___
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 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 name is sometimes
> used and interpreted as indicating a wilderness trail
>
> would it be  good summary of a situation?

This thread would not have gone on as long as it has if there were a
consensus on your statement.

Mind you, I'm not arguing the contrary. At this point, I don't know
what it means. Whatever the world decides, there are a lot of things
that will have to be retagged or have more information provided.


To Daniel's list, I'd add objectives:
 - Avoid basing routing decisions on the absence of a tag; every
attribute should have a specific negation available.
 - Avoid requiring mappers to be expert in a specific sport before a
way can be identified as unsuitable for that sport. For instance, one
should not be required to be knowledgeable enough to assess
`mtb_scale` before being able to assert "this way is not suitable for
commuters on road bikes."

Better nuance for hiking trails is really low on my list, except at
the very lowest end of the difficulty scale: can someone NOT prepared
for hiking (for example, using a mobility aid, or wearing high heels,
or with small children in tow) be routed down it? Hiking trail nuance
is also not something that needs to inform routing decisions made by a
computer; at least to me, the idea of using an autorouter to plan a
hike boggles the mind! We have abundant ways already to tag specific
hazards and conditions. I can read.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 29, 2020, 08:29 by a...@thaw.de:

>>> For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of 
>>> somebody making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine 
>>> whether "implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it 
>>> different for some of these signs, or are they all the same in this regard?
>>>
>>
>> I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission?
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Mateusz changed the wiki to say different. Clearly, consensus does not 
> currently exist to support that change.
>
Wiki was changed again.

Rolled back on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=history

Described as controversial/unclear on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:access%3Dprivate=history

Thanks to Arne Johannessen for making an edit to better reflect what was 
discussed.
___
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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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

would it be  good summary of a situation?

___
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

[Daniel Westergren]

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
everyone on this tagging list, we create a smaller "working group" that can
come up with a concrete suggestion to solve the major issues. What do you
think about that? Who would like to work with such a proposal?

*Major issues*, as I understand it:

   1. How do we treat highway=path and highway=footway that has no
   additional tags?
   2. Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we
   use) or a way for non-specified/mixed use? That is, are we talking about
   the physical characteristics of a way or its function? *Btw, this would
   likely mean that 99 % of path/footway/cycleway in Sweden should be path, if
   the latter interpretation is to be used.*
   3. #1 & #2 makes it really difficult for data consumers, they have to
   depend on (often non-existing) subtags.
   4. Additional tags must be used to denote accessibility for
   pedestrians/cyclists of ordinary ability, that is "this is NOT a hiking
   trail/wilderness trail!. But which would these tags be?
   5. Additional tags must also be used to tell !this IS a wilderness
   trail! (or whatever term we use).


*Subtags*
To specify the physical characteristics of a highway=path or
highway=footway we have a multitude of tags, with no particular
recommendation about which ones must or should be used (see #4 & #5 above):
surface, smoothness, width, trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and
possibly incline.


*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 there is not enough
nuance in the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS),
Australian Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on
sac_scale?


*What needs to be done?*

   1. We have to rely on subtags...
   2. We need to decide what subtags to be used to tell this is an
   accessible path or this is a wilderness trail.
   3. We need a way to better nuance hiking trails.
   4. Documention needs to be much more clear and specific, in order for
   mappers and data consumers to really know when different kinds of highway
   tags should be used and what subtags must/should be used.
   5. Editors need to be improved to encourage tagging that will make it
   easier for data consumers.
   6. Better default rendering of non-urban paths, to encourage the use of
   mentioned subtags.


Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interestet in
continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this
mailing list?

/Daniel





Den fre 29 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Volker Schmidt :

> 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 of tags of keys are not
> orthogonal, but whatever we invent in additional new tagging, won't make
> the existing tagging go away. So whatever we add, we make life for data
> consumers even more complicated. And redefining the meaning of the existing
> tags is also out of the question.
> What we can do is to improve the documentation, which is overlapping and
> dispersed abd, maybe, we can do better in documenting country-specific
> tagging traditions, but not more.
> Also when doing so we have to avoid absolutely anything that my appear to
> be wiki fiddling.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 if you're trying to map your area
>> artistically and say as much as possible; it shouldn't be necessary
>> for a mapper to do so, or for a data consumer to understand
>> everything, in order to get reasonable approximate results.
>>
>> Depends on what you want to achieve.
>>
>> surface=* goes a long way toward distinguishing it,
>> but there are still unpaved park footways in city centers
>> and paved path inaccessible to many.
>>
>> surface=* + wheelchair=no where applicable seems
>> to cover basically everything of what I mapped -
>> except unpaved paths in parks.
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> 

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

[Alan Mackie]

I think part of the problem with the highway=track description is that even
when you are there on the ground it isn't always clear what it's being used
for. They are often two ruts in the ground disappearing of into the
distance with little else to go on. If you then look at aerial imagery you
may see that is goes to a single house and re-tag as driveway or that it
serves multiple buildings and guess at whether the buildings lean towards
highway=residential, highway=service or highway=unclassified. It's easy to
say "primarily agricultural or forestry" but this is often rather difficult
to verify.

There is then a separate problem in that OSM-carto, the default 'check that
it worked' renderer, doesn't render road surfaces or tracktypes for
anything other than tracks. This discourages the 'proper' tagging for those
who want to tell at a glance how likely they are to get their car stuck or
how likely it is that they will be able to do a three point turn if there
are obstructions.

Tangentially, I have always found the tracktypes a little difficult to
apply if you don't have the type of soil depicted in the examples. Some
ground tends to get "lumpier" rather than softer if you keep using it
without improvement.

On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 01:33, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I think the wiki already does a good job at communicating this.
>
> iD already goes a step too far calling these "unmaintained track roads"
> but if anything that would have prevented people tagging as highway=track
> just because it is maintained, so not a factor in this case.
>
> I think the default renderer does play a role with some people might be
> tagging for the renderer, but nothing can be done about that from the
> tagging perspective.
>
> I see someone has left a changeset comment, that's the right thing to do,
> it gives the person who made this change a chance to come back either a
> counter point on why they really should be highway=track, or a chance for
> them to learn about their mistake and improve so they don't make it again.
> If you don't hear back from the comment, you could just go ahead and fix
> them back to residential if that's how you know they should be.
>
> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 08:12, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and
>> more cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to
>> "highway=track".  For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the
>> area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been
>> changed to "highway=track", when at least most of them should be
>> "highway=residential."  What can be done to better communicate that OSM has
>> a functional highway classification system (I did leave a change set
>> comment, but I doubt it will do any good)?
>>
>> Mike
>> ___
>> 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