Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
Hi, there is no need for path=hiking or path=footpad (unless this a road, where you can run into highwayman, but I probably miss something). The existing tags cover much more than I need. Custom, undocumented tags just won't be rendered, not even on custom renderings. Zsolt Herrbert74 On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Describe the physical condition of a way, with tags such as 'surface' let the users decide if it's their idea of hikable. Let me say immediately that the ideology of describe the physical characteristics, and let people make up their own mind is deeply flawed at both ends. It would be extremely time consuming to collect the level of data to make that work - measuring widths, roughness etc at many points along a track. And presenting all that fine-grained data to end users is not useful either: it needs to be distilled into something that can be processed quickly by someone reading a map. I've got nothing against people using this approach, but I find it extremely impractical and inefficient for my purposes. Now, back to the discussion. I've probably tried to compress too many distinctions in here. There is: a) rough vs smooth (by rough I actually meant the opposite of careful, not the opposite of smooth) b) wide vs narrow c) constructed vs natural d) official vs unofficial e) dirt vs surfaced Benefits of tagging correctly would include: 1) routing for practical walkers (getting from A to B, avoiding muddy paths perhaps) 2) routing for recreational walkers (comfortable with a wider range of tracks) 3) routing for practical cyclists (getting from A to B) 4) routing for adventure/mtb cyclists (having fun) 5) showing on appropriate maps (unofficial footpads shouldn't show up on official town or park maps, even if useful) So, what kind of scheme would achieve the above, as efficiently as possible? I agree with Sam that it's not a trivial problem. One tentative idea: highway=footway: 1, 5 and maybe 3 highway=path, path=footpad: 2 and maybe 4 But how to tag a mountain bike path that pedestrians are forbidden from using? path=footpad, foot=no seems weird. Alternatives would be to focus on the official/unofficial distinction, the surface, the width etc. But these seem a bit indirect. Thoughts? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
Hi all, I just came across this tag in taginfo, but there's no description in any wiki. Anyone know the story? Is this a good way to describe hiking paths, and to distinguish well-constructed walking paths from rough, narrow hiking trails? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: highway=path, path=hiking doesn't say any more to me than highway=footway on its own would. The distinction is well constructed versus rough, minimal maintenance. highway=path, path=hiking: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path-1-238412973779541Zf.jpg highway=footway: http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through-Strid-Wood_web.jpg?k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood This distinction exists and is meaningful. The question is whether this is a good way to express it. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
It's 'smooth' :+) yes, i'm actually working on the answer not just snarking. It's not as easy a question as at 1st glance. cheers, Sam On 7/16/11, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: highway=path, path=hiking doesn't say any more to me than highway=footway on its own would. The distinction is well constructed versus rough, minimal maintenance. highway=path, path=hiking: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path-1-238412973779541Zf.jpg highway=footway: http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through-Strid-Wood_web.jpg?k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood This distinction exists and is meaningful. The question is whether this is a good way to express it. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- --- Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network Victoria, BC Canada Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' Member, CommonMap Inc. http://commonmap.org/ IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap Also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
On 16/07/2011 15:27, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: highway=path, path=hiking doesn't say any more to me than highway=footway on its own would. The distinction is well constructed versus rough, minimal maintenance. highway=path, path=hiking: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path-1-238412973779541Zf.jpg highway=footway: http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through-Strid-Wood_web.jpg?k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood This distinction exists and is meaningful. The question is whether this is a good way to express it. There are plenty of hiking paths that are well constructed, and not rough or narrow. So I don't think path=hiking is very useful at specifying that difference. Also, some rough / narrow paths might be used for mountain biking or horse riding etc, not just hiking. What about something equivalent to tracktype? ie with numbers/grades. So your first photo could be grade 4 or 5, and the second photo grade 1. Craig ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
Hi, On Samstag, 16. Juli 2011, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: highway=path, path=hiking doesn't say any more to me than highway=footway on its own would. The distinction is well constructed versus rough, minimal maintenance. highway=path, path=hiking: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path -1-238412973779541Zf.jpg This way looks wide enough for agricultural vehicles. I'd tag this as: highway=track tracktype=grade2 highway=footway: http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through- Strid-Wood_web.jpg?k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood And this as highway=path sac_scale=hiking and maybe surface=ground This distinction exists and is meaningful. The question is whether this is a good way to express it. Take a look at taginfo: sac_scale: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sac_scale#values path: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/path#values surface: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surface#values Regards Werner (werner2101) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
On 16/07/2011 15:27, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: highway=path, path=hiking doesn't say any more to me than highway=footway on its own would. The distinction is well constructed versus rough, minimal maintenance. highway=path, path=hiking: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path-1-238412973779541Zf.jpg highway=footway: http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through-Strid-Wood_web.jpg?k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood Well, both of these can be used for 'hiking'. You appear to be using this expression in a subjective way, which is not helpful. Describe the physical condition of a way, with tags such as 'surface' let the users decide if it's their idea of hikable. If it's a signed hiking route then it should preferably be within a route relation. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
