Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

[Mike Thompson]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:50 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> It's a trail just for firefighting and rescue to access, but closed to
all others, correct?
That is not correct.  There is no legal restriction on its use for foot
travel.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:30 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436
>
> They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the
> name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we
> should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it
> is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an
> official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is
> "informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on
> this issue.
>

It's a trail just for firefighting and rescue to access, but closed to all
others, correct?

highway=footway
access=no
emergency=yes
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:37 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:
>
> I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment.
Thanks for commenting.

> Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be
signposted
Agree.  It will also show up on official park maps, and possibly in
official park GIS data.

> and potentially part of a hiking route,
Agree, but we don't have many official "hiking routes" in this area.

> and an "informal" route won't be signposted an not part of a hiking
route, is that your view too?
Agree generally.

> In that case for the "official" one I'd use foot=designated and make it
part of the route=hiking relation, and foot=yes for the informal one. This
matches the definitions of =yes and =designated at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.
I wouldn't be opposed to such tagging.However, there are many official
trails in this area, and no trail is not officially preferred/designated
over other official trails for foot use.


> I agree it's best to use a barrier=* tag on the node instead of
disconnecting the ways, as that barrier might only block motor_vehicles,
not foot access, which the barrier can be tagged as such.
The "barrier" in question is probably meant to keep casual hikers from
inadvertently taking the Fire Trail.  Motor vehicles are not allowed on
trails in the park.  Nevertheless, I agree with your recommendation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

[Mike Thompson]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:
>
>
> In the second case: is fire trail illegal
No, there are no signs on or near the trail indicating this.  Nor are there
any signs in the park that going off official trails is illegal (there are
a few restricted areas elsewhere in the park).  In fact, getting to many of
the destinations in the park require travel off of the official trails.
For example, there are no official trails to the summit of Mt Meeker,
Hallett Peak, or Mt Otis (not to mention dozens of other peaks, lakes and
waterfalls).

> discouraged
Perhaps if a tourist looking for a short scenic hike were to ask a ranger
it would be as it is steeper than the nearby official trail (covers the
same amount of vertical in less horizontal distance) and is not
particularly scenic (goes through dense woods).  It is mainly used by
hikers wanting to get to the more distant peaks on the continental divide
as well as rangers patrolling the area.  There are no signs or maps
discouraging its use.

> dangerous?
No more dangerous that some official trails in the park.  The trail is well
defined so there is little danger of getting lost, and there is little
chance of a long fall.  Like many official trails, there is a risk of
tripping on rocks and roots.


> Maybe it is taggable,
Yes, all characteristics of this trail that might be of interest are
taggable.  The issue is that some apps do not symbolize all of this
information.  This is an issue with the apps themselves, and should be
addressed with the app developers, not by changing how we map things in OSM.

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

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8 Nov 2019, 02:29 by miketh...@gmail.com:

> Hello,
>
> User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436 
> 
>
> They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name 
> to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we should 
> only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it is not 
> really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an official trail 
> according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is "informal" [1].  
> Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on this issue.
>
> dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail, even 
> though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and logs 
> (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location, there was 
> no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and perhaps 
> indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are 
> "trail_visibility=intermediate."
>
> Mike
>
> [0] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only 
> 
> [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal 
> 
>
Sounds like typical incorrect mapping for renderer.

In the first case: name is for name only
In the second case: is fire trail illegal/discouraged/dangerous? Maybe it is 
taggable,
but deliberate breaking connections is not OK.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

[Andrew Harvey]

I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment. I agree that name should
be the proper name only and all other information can go in other tags or
the description field.

Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be signposted
and potentially part of a hiking route, and an "informal" route won't be
signposted an not part of a hiking route, is that your view too? In that
case for the "official" one I'd use foot=designated and make it part of the
route=hiking relation, and foot=yes for the informal one. This matches the
definitions of =yes and =designated at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking_Maps lists a range of hiking
maps many do show more information than the default OSM rendered.

I agree it's best to use a barrier=* tag on the node instead of
disconnecting the ways, as that barrier might only block motor_vehicles,
not foot access, which the barrier can be tagged as such.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 12:30, Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436
>
> They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the
> name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we
> should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it
> is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an
> official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is
> "informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on
> this issue.
>
> dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail,
> even though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and
> logs (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location,
> there was no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and
> perhaps indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are
> "trail_visibility=intermediate."
>
> Mike
>
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
> ___
> 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] Changeset 62867521

[Mike Thompson]

Hello,

User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436

They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name
to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we
should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it
is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an
official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is
"informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on
this issue.

dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail,
even though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and
logs (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location,
there was no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and
perhaps indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are
"trail_visibility=intermediate."

Mike

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging