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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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

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

[Warin]

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
a hazard.


railway=abandoned
hazard=tagging_discussions


+1


+1

"Mostly harmless but infuriating" ?

___
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

[Alan Mackie]

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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
___
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]

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 grizzlys up north or snakes in the south.   We have 
>>  signs warning of rodents carrying plague around here, should we tag that 
>>  too?
>>
>
> The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as a hazard.
>

railway=abandoned
hazard=tagging_discussions
___
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

[Paul Allen]

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 plague around here, should we tag that
> too?
>

The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as a hazard.

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

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

[brad]

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 6/8/20 5:13 AM, Alan Mackie wrote:



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 wildlife.

Big difficulty in defining where to place cut-off for dangerous and
when an area is dangerous... Ultimately most of the world has some
dangerous wildlife. If very unlucky you could be gored by a boar
within city limits of Berlin. Bears are semi-regularly found in some
suburbs of Vancouver. Where would you draw the line?


Signs are often posted for dangerous wildlife or trail conditions. I 
think the signs themselves would be more than welcome in OSM.


I don't know how this would be incorporated into a wider "area" type 
structure though. I imagine the boundaries of these areas are quite 
nebulous?


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



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

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

[Alan Mackie]

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 wildlife.
>
> Big difficulty in defining where to place cut-off for dangerous and
> when an area is dangerous... Ultimately most of the world has some
> dangerous wildlife. If very unlucky you could be gored by a boar
> within city limits of Berlin. Bears are semi-regularly found in some
> suburbs of Vancouver. Where would you draw the line?
>
>
Signs are often posted for dangerous wildlife or trail conditions. I think
the signs themselves would be more than welcome in OSM.

I don't know how this would be incorporated into a wider "area" type
structure though. I imagine the boundaries of these areas are quite
nebulous?
___
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 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 for dangerous and
when an area is dangerous... Ultimately most of the world has some
dangerous wildlife. If very unlucky you could be gored by a boar
within city limits of Berlin. Bears are semi-regularly found in some
suburbs of Vancouver. Where would you draw the line?

--Jarek

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

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

[Warin]

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 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?





A dead carcass will be deposed of in the Australian bush by animals, 
birds and/or insects.


So, yes your dead body will be eaten in the Australian bush... in some 
places quite quickly. Usually bones and hair will be left behind some of 
it as scat.



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.


___
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

[Richard]

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 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.

.. and don't forget via ferrata's have their own scale, athough they *should*
be using higway=via_ferrata - and climbing routes *should* be using 
route=climbing

> 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?

as most of the bears here should have a GPS transmitter there should be
a live map displaying areas where they might be encountered (don't think anyone
will release their exact position as it might encourage idiots seeking
an adrenaline push or poachers).

Richard

___
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 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?

Certainly you can use highway=not_an_easy_walk (or a better
alternative). There's a post upthread (or in a similar thread
somewhere?) about an editor in a mountainous area explicitly changing
tagging away from highway=path to try to avoid casual hikers getting
in situations where they need rescue. You can use any tags you like in
OSM. The hard part is if you want to get consensus on what tags to
recommend.

>> No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock of 
>> "path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add 
>> additional confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers and 
>> routers
>>
>>> Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that 
>>> will tell what this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?
>
>> We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the 
>> necessary tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in use.and we 
>> need to reamin backaward compatible in view of the enourmous numbers). What 
>> we can do and need to do is to improve the description of the various 
>> existing tagging options in the wiki (without touching their definition)
>
> My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t change 
> any tagging”. I don’t find that helpful.

I find that realistic. Consider two big "let's fix up tagging for
this" initiatives in OSM: public_transport=* and healthcare=*.
Healthcare is only recently getting accepted and there is no consensus
to expand its use (see healthcare=pharmacy getting explicitly
_deprecated_), and public_transport=* is still not rendered on
osm-carto after almost a decade.

You can change tagging. But you can't force the rest of the OSM
ecosystem to start using your new tags.


--Jarek

___
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 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 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 main tag?
> No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock of 
> "path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add additional 
> confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers and routers
> Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that 
> will tell what this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?
> We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the necessary 
> tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in use.and we need to 
> reamin backaward compatible in view of the enourmous numbers). What we can do 
> and need to do is to improve the description of the various existing tagging 
> options in the wiki (without touching their definition)

My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t change any 
tagging”. I don’t find that helpful.

> I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the google 
> docs doc.
> 
> Ok, I'll email those who have expressed interest in following or 
> participating in the discussion. Suggestions and comments can also be done in 
> the Google Doc.
> 
> As said before I would prefer that his discussion remain on one of the tools 
> of the OSM community, mainly for documenting the discussion.

I agree with you on this. Especially as I’ve gone to fairly extreme measures to 
reduce my exposure to Google.



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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 is nearly impossible due to the immense amount of work
involved.
You cannot undo old tagging, you have to carry it with you and any new
tagging you introduce is making life even more complicated, because you
have to support both old and new.
Maybe due to my way of inserting data, often along cycle routes or recorded
GPX tracks  (and Mapillary photos) I encounter so many cases were JOSM
reminds me of deprecated tagging in the data I downloaded, but data that I
have not touched at all. I keep ignoring these messages because I have no
knowledge of the situation on the ground, but the sheer number of these
warning messages is indicating that this approach of introducing new
tagging and then leaving to others the task of updating the old tagging, is
basically wrong.
If we feel that we need to introduce additional tagging you may consider
this, but changing existing tagging (or re-defining existing tagging, which
amounts to the same thing) is near to impossible.
In this specific discussion we may have an underlying problem (or advantage
?): In my part of the world quite a lot of minor highways (tracks, paths,
cycleways, footways) is already mapped (I would assume that in Germany this
even more the case), so any tag or wiki changes would cause a lot of work.
If you are in an area where the minor viability is still less well covered
in OSM, you may consider local tagging definitions which differ from the
ones used in other parts of the world, and try to control who is tagging in
"your" area (would be difficult here as we have many visiting mappers form
the northern side of the Alps)

I recently created a cycling map of my city. Bicycle tagging has already
gone through several major redefinitions of tagging and I had to take into
account all the different generations of tagging people have applied here.
And that is a local map and also it left out the surface (paved vs
unpaved). I know what we are talking about - don't repeat those mistakes.





Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
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

[Andy Townsend]

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, 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 main tag?

No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock 
of "path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add 
additional confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers 
and routers


Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical
characteristics that will tell what this path|footway|cycleway
actually looks like?

We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the 
necessary tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in 
use.and we need to reamin backaward compatible in view of the 
enourmous numbers). What we can do and need to do is to improve the 
description of the various existing tagging options in the wiki 
(without touching their definition)


To be honest, I'd expect that most OSM contributors (new and old) don't 
look at the wiki at all.  If you want to influence how people tag 
things, it'd be more effective to try and ensure that editor presets in 
the commonly-used editors match whatever the community consensus is 
(although after 116 messages about this last month on the tagging list, 
I'm not sure that there is a consensus about even what the problem is).


Best Regards,

Andy




___
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]

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 paths/wilderness
> paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?
>
No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock of
"path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add
additional confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers and
routers

> Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that
> will tell what this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?
>
We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the
necessary tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in use.and
we need to reamin backaward compatible in view of the enourmous numbers).
What we can do and need to do is to improve the description of the various
existing tagging options in the wiki (without touching their definition)

Don't forget dirt bikes & ATV's (<50 inchs, 127 cm) in this assessment.
>> Many trails are open to, and used by, everyone including motor vehicles.
>> Perhaps this just means that footway & cycleway are non-motorized, and path
>> could be.
>>
> We do have a more or less agreed set of default access restrictions tables
.
We cannot retrospectively change them.. For most countries this sets the
default access for "path" to foot|bicycle|horse (in the US also "moped").
Again these default values have been there for a while, hence many millions
of paths and tracks are tagged on that base.

One thing you can do for future tagging is to convince the JOSM and iD
people to create more specific presets (say an ATV preset which would check
that there is a width tag on the path with a value of at least 127cm, and
also set the access to motor_vehicle=yes (I don't know if we do already
have an ATV vehicle category)

>
> Yeah, something like "and possibly smaller motor vehicles" should be
> added. In Sweden, for example, cycleways are normally open for smaller
> mopeds. "...primarily intended for non-motorized vehicles and possibly
> smaller motor vehicles".
>
Tere is so far no table on the above wiki page for Sweden. If moped=yes
that is the default situation on cycleways in Sweden, it would be good idea
to add a new table for > shouldn't tag for a lousy renderer, but we should tag for the user &
>> sometimes the rules laid down are wrong.
>>
> We do not have laid down rules, and we cannot create any. The wiki
documents what mappers do,
I would say we should not define things that make life even more complex to
people who design renderers and routers, to mappers, and , last but not
least keep the end user in mind.

>
>> I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the
>> google docs doc.
>>
>
> Ok, I'll email those who have expressed interest in following or
> participating in the discussion. Suggestions and comments can also be done
> in the Google Doc.
>

As said before I would prefer that his discussion remain on one of the
tools of the OSM community, mainly for documenting the discussion.

Volker


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
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]

>
> 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 main tag? Can we somehow
"enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that will tell what
this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?



> Don't forget dirt bikes & ATV's (<50 inchs, 127 cm) in this assessment.
> Many trails are open to, and used by, everyone including motor vehicles.
> Perhaps this just means that footway & cycleway are non-motorized, and path
> could be.
>

Yeah, something like "and possibly smaller motor vehicles" should be added.
In Sweden, for example, cycleways are normally open for smaller mopeds.
"...primarily intended for non-motorized vehicles and possibly smaller
motor vehicles".



> The sermon that keeps getting repeated is don't tag for the renderer.   We
> shouldn't tag for a lousy renderer, but we should tag for the user &
> sometimes the rules laid down are wrong.
>
> I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the
> google docs doc.
>

Ok, I'll email those who have expressed interest in following or
participating in the discussion. Suggestions and comments can also be done
in the Google Doc.

/Daniel



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

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

[brad]

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 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PtBPFDW3EHrBHl5sy8L-_5a0xNR1w-9YXt-gmfMB_M/edit?usp=sharing 



I find the wiki terrible for collaborations like this, as is the wiki 
discussion. I've therefore used Google Docs, although I realize not 
all are happy with that. The document is open for anyone with the link 
to view and comment and depending on what people say we can move this 
to another platform if needed. And the end result obviously needs to 
be in the wiki.


I divided the mapping/tagging of pathways into:

 1. function (highway=footway|cycleway|path)
 2. legal access (access=*)
 3. usability (surface, smoothness & width, basically to denote
usability for people of ordinary ability)
 4. technicality (trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and a
possible hiking difficulty tag, basically to describe a ways
difficulty in more detail)
 5. additional tags (that I don't really see the use for, such as
informal=yes/no and incline)

Comments are welcome. Is this a good start to clarify this mess?

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.   Don't forget dirt bikes & ATV's (<50 
inchs, 127 cm) in this assessment.  Many trails are open to, and used 
by, everyone including motor vehicles.    Perhaps this just means that 
footway & cycleway are non-motorized, and path could be.


The sermon that keeps getting repeated is don't tag for the renderer.   
We shouldn't tag for a lousy renderer, but we should tag for the user & 
sometimes the rules laid down are wrong.


I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the 
google docs doc.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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, no
matter how lacking the additional tagging is. Last resort would be ignoring
it.

If basic tagging means that renderers and routers start to ignore mapped
ways, that would be bad indeed.


Best, Peter Elderson


Op zo 31 mei 2020 om 17:37 schreef Daniel Westergren :

> 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 discussions are so important). And it
> is definitely a physical characteristic, which is why path can't define
> more than the function of a way and other characteristics must always be
> used to define the physical characteristics that are important to
> understand who can use it.
>
>
> >2. the default OSM rendering not considering physical characteristics
>> (particularly for non-urban ways) ...
>>
>> I am not clear on the definition of "urban" you use. I notice you also
>> used this word in the doc you've written up (thank you!). Are my
>> examples "urban"? They're well within city borders, near to urban
>> areas, but they're not like a sidewalk. At what point do we cross from
>> a city park pathway to a non-urban way?
>>
>
> We don't need to make that distinction if we only use
> path|footway|cycleway for the function of a way (basically for pedestrians,
> bicyclists or both/unknown). By adding surface and smoothness we will know
> enough about its usability for "people of ordinary ability", whether we
> call it an urban footway, a rural path, a hiking trail or whatever that may
> work locally.
>
> Indeed, such wordings should probably be removed if they cause confusion,
> IMO.
>
> Ouch... I've said enough. I'm looking forward to more input on the use of
> highway tags for function, surface/smoothness/width for usability and other
> tags for technicality. Good and clear distinctions?
>
> /Daniel
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --Jarek
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Daniel Westergren]

>
> 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 discussions are so important). And it is
definitely a physical characteristic, which is why path can't define more
than the function of a way and other characteristics must always be used to
define the physical characteristics that are important to understand who
can use it.


>2. the default OSM rendering not considering physical characteristics
> (particularly for non-urban ways) ...
>
> I am not clear on the definition of "urban" you use. I notice you also
> used this word in the doc you've written up (thank you!). Are my
> examples "urban"? They're well within city borders, near to urban
> areas, but they're not like a sidewalk. At what point do we cross from
> a city park pathway to a non-urban way?
>

We don't need to make that distinction if we only use path|footway|cycleway
for the function of a way (basically for pedestrians, bicyclists or
both/unknown). By adding surface and smoothness we will know enough about
its usability for "people of ordinary ability", whether we call it an urban
footway, a rural path, a hiking trail or whatever that may work locally.

Indeed, such wordings should probably be removed if they cause confusion,
IMO.

Ouch... I've said enough. I'm looking forward to more input on the use of
highway tags for function, surface/smoothness/width for usability and other
tags for technicality. Good and clear distinctions?

/Daniel




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

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

[Daniel Westergren]

> 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 intrinsic
> meaning. Their meaning is defined by their use.
>

That's how it would be in an ideal world. But why do we then translate all
these "code words" into other languages? A "path" in Swedis is translated
to "stig" and of course I will use that for a wilderness trail and think
all is fine and dandy, when it's not.

There is a dissonance between what some may understand as the underlying
intention of a key and what is communicated to less-experienced users.
That's why everyone has their own interpretation of what a path must be.



> The "path" problem is not a problem. A way in OSM tagged with highway=path
> (without any other tag) means a narrow, unpaved track,  on which you are
> allowed to walk, cycle, and (in most jurisdictions) ride on a horse or on a
> donkey.
>

I'd have to disagree strongly with this, based on what I've learnt during
this long thread. A path without additional tags can really be anything,
really anything. It can be a narrow, unpaved track or it can be a wide
combined foot- and cycleway that the user doesn't know how to tag (or
doesn't know enough about), or anything in between. There can't be two
completely different uses of path, since they both depend on subtags that
may or may not exist.

This is the very reason why we're discussing this and that's what I have
tried to explain better in the draft text I shared. path|footway|cycleway
cannot be both about the function of the way and the physical
characteristics at the same time. Additional tags must be used to tell that
"yes. this is actually a narrow, unpaved track" or "no, this is not a
narrow, unpaved track, but a sidewalk or a wide, urban footway where
bicycles may also be welcome" or else we're back in the mess again.

Thanks to Kevin, Andrew and others for these enlightenments.

/Daniel
___
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 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 currently being discussed about 
> highway=track) in two entirely conflicting ways, as someone has mentioned, 
> function VS physical characteristics.

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?

>2. the default OSM rendering not considering physical characteristics 
>(particularly for non-urban ways) ...

I am not clear on the definition of "urban" you use. I notice you also
used this word in the doc you've written up (thank you!). Are my
examples "urban"? They're well within city borders, near to urban
areas, but they're not like a sidewalk. At what point do we cross from
a city park pathway to a non-urban way?

--Jarek

___
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]

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 foot- and cycleway.
> No, it can't, because often the latter case is tagged without access tags
> and therefore impossible to interpret based on the highway tag alone.
>
> And herein probably lies the fundamental error of
> 1. using words that people normally would associate with physical
> characteristics, but to only mean function
> 2. the default OSM rendering not considering physical characteristics
> (particularly for non-urban ways) together with underestimating the extent
> of tagging for the renderer (obviously people want their tagging to be
> confirmed)
>
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 intrinsic
meaning. Their meaning is defined by their use.
The "path" problem is not a problem. A way in OSM tagged with highway=path
(without any other tag) means a narrow, unpaved track,  on which you are
allowed to walk, cycle, and (in most jurisdictions) ride on a horse or on a
donkey. A way in OSM tagged with the tag combination highway=path plus
bicycle=designated plus foot=designated means a combined or segregated
foot-cycleway.
We could also have chosen, in the beginning of OSM, to define keys
differently. We could have chosen "trail" or "sentiero" or "pfad" or
"òkljdgpiodjg" instead of "path", the result would have been exactly the
same. The convention in OSM to use British English terms for keys and
values is a convenience and is meant to help memorizing keys and values.
___
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 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 like this, as is the wiki
discussion. I've therefore used Google Docs, although I realize not all are
happy with that. The document is open for anyone with the link to view
and comment and depending on what people say we can move this to another
platform if needed. And the end result obviously needs to be in the wiki.

I divided the mapping/tagging of pathways into:

   1. function (highway=footway|cycleway|path)
   2. legal access (access=*)
   3. usability (surface, smoothness & width, basically to denote usability
   for people of ordinary ability)
   4. technicality (trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and a possible
   hiking difficulty tag, basically to describe a ways difficulty in more
   detail)
   5. additional tags (that I don't really see the use for, such as
   informal=yes/no and incline)

Comments are welcome. Is this a good start to clarify this mess?

/Daniel

Den sön 31 maj 2020 kl 09:37 skrev Jonathon Rossi :

> 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 here?
>>
>
> I'm happy to follow along the conversation on the mailing list to hear all
> views without strongly participating; right now my views are already
> covered by others.
>
> Most importantly I'd like an outcome that results in wiki pages that we
> don't just ignore because they contradict each other, that sort of tagging
> just makes everyone's life hard. This tagging problem seems to always get
> dropped into the too hard basket.
>
> --
> Jono
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jonathon Rossi]

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 here?
>

I'm happy to follow along the conversation on the mailing list to hear all
views without strongly participating; right now my views are already
covered by others.

Most importantly I'd like an outcome that results in wiki pages that we
don't just ignore because they contradict each other, that sort of tagging
just makes everyone's life hard. This tagging problem seems to always get
dropped into the too hard basket.

-- 
Jono
___
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, 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 conflicting ways, as someone has
mentioned, *function
VS physical characteristics*.

For some, it seems obvious that all highway tags, from the biggest roads
down to forest tracks and wilderness paths, are supposed to be used
according to their function, not at all their physical characteristics. 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 foot- and cycleway.
No, it can't, because often the latter case is tagged without access tags
and therefore impossible to interpret based on the highway tag alone.

And herein probably lies the fundamental error of
1. using words that people normally would associate with physical
characteristics, but to only mean function
2. the default OSM rendering not considering physical characteristics
(particularly for non-urban ways) together with underestimating the extent
of tagging for the renderer (obviously people want their tagging to be
confirmed)

This makes these lower-end highway tags extremely ambiguous. And STILL I
see people emphasize that path can have these two meanings at the same
time. But if we are to make anything meaningful of the data they really
can't. I can't believe this anomaly has been allowed to remain unsolved for
this many years.

1. We must decide whether Highway=path|footway|cycleway is to tell a ways
function OR its physical characteristics, not both. Other tags will then
have to be used (and should be strongly encouraged in the case of these
lower-end highways) to denote other characteristics to make them useful for
data consumers.

Unless we clarify this, other tags will just continue to confuse the
original meaning of highway=path|footway|cycleway and thus basically become
troll tags. And there will always be a problem when no additional tags are
being used.

2. Once the single deciding factor behind highway=path|footway|cycle way
has been clarified (likely function only) we can deal with ways to describe
physical characteristics in a KISS way (so it's actually being used).
That's what Kevin is asking for.


*Documenting the process*
Second thing I wanted to talk about is about the suggestion of the
importance of documenting this discussion. I'm not sure what has to be
documemted other than final decisions and significant opposing views?

I thought that many people on this list would rather not be bombarded by
100+ emails about the same topic, which is why I suggested keeping the
discussion among those who are interested in the actual discussion and not
just its conclusions.

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 here?

/Daniel


Den sön 31 maj 2020 02:48Jarek Piórkowski  skrev:

> 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
>
___
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 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Florimond Berthoux]

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 constructed path.
>
> I uploaded the result.
>
> Another mapper gave me a (very mild) scolding, changed them all to
> `footway`, and steered me to the JOSM templates for dedicated footway,
> dedicated cycleway, bridleway, combined foot/cycleway, and so on.
> Since then,I've been using those, which causes `highway=path` to
> appear for any combined foot/cycleway, but causes `highway=footway` to
> appear for anything from a broad paved path in a city park to a
> technical wilderness trail.
>

> According to Florimond, that's correct. According to Daniel, that's
> read as an assertion that the technical trail is an urban footway.
> According to the Wiki, it depends on what page you read and how far
> you get into the comments. According to the mapped data, it varies
> considerably according to where you are. (Near me, there's a major
> cycleway - paved doubletrack - that's 'highway=path bicycle=designated
> foot=yes'. I walk a few km on it nearly every day.) To a data
> consumer, it's "oh well, I don't know what it is" and either an
> optimistic assumption that it's routable or a pessimistic assumption
> that it isn't.
>

I agree that the wiki is too much wordy and definition and instruction is
placed in too many places.
Adding words don't make documentation clearer it makes things more
complicate to read, to understand and to maintain.
We should use simple rules :
key definition is only on its page, value definition on the its page or on
the key page if there is no need for special page.
Keep definition as simple as possible.

-- 
Florimond Berthoux
___
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]

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 (very mild) scolding, changed them all to
`footway`, and steered me to the JOSM templates for dedicated footway,
dedicated cycleway, bridleway, combined foot/cycleway, and so on.
Since then,I've been using those, which causes `highway=path` to
appear for any combined foot/cycleway, but causes `highway=footway` to
appear for anything from a broad paved path in a city park to a
technical wilderness trail.

According to Florimond, that's correct. According to Daniel, that's
read as an assertion that the technical trail is an urban footway.
According to the Wiki, it depends on what page you read and how far
you get into the comments. According to the mapped data, it varies
considerably according to where you are. (Near me, there's a major
cycleway - paved doubletrack - that's 'highway=path bicycle=designated
foot=yes'. I walk a few km on it nearly every day.) To a data
consumer, it's "oh well, I don't know what it is" and either an
optimistic assumption that it's routable or a pessimistic assumption
that it isn't.

Compounding the issue is that while the `path` preset offered all the
'surface', 'smoothness', 'incline', etc. tags, at the time the
`footway` preset was much more limited. It does now; that's been
fixed. Well, mostly: `footway` and `cycleway` still don't offer ski,
snowmobile, sac_scale, mtb_scale or visibility; those are available
only on `path`. So the confusion appears to run deep, with even JOSM's
presets running both ways - paths get the option to have the 'back
country' options, while cycleway/footway do not, but
combined-foot-and-cycleway is a path.

I'm now trying to make it a practice to supply `surface` and
`smoothness` when I add trails, and `sac_scale` where I think I can
scale it without too much controversy. See my earlier message about
how I've had southern Germans look at what I'd consider a highly
technical (grade 4 on the Yosemite scale) trail, and insist that it's
at most 'mountain hiking'. I think they simply refuse to concede that
technical trails might exist outside the Alps. I hope that's enough to
keep routers from keeping Granny and little kids off the rock
scrambles and road bikes off the trials courses.

But there are a LOT of highway=footway out there with NO other tags,
or just a name. I don't know what a data consumer may safely assume
about these, or for that mapper, what minimum set of information that
a mapper is expected to provide for the path to be routable.

I'm hoping that the minimum doesn't include 'incline'. Some of the
trails I map are full of PUD's (Pointless Ups and Downs).  I don't
want to have to bring a clinometer in order to map them and to split
segments anywhere that the gradient changes, particularly since tools
like Waymarked Trails are perfectly capable of draping the way over a
digital elevation model.

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.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:21 PM Florimond Berthoux
 wrote:
>
> 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 multiple feature in one tag.
>
> The wiki explain it well :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
>
> highway footway : For designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for 
> pedestrians. This includes walking tracks and gravel paths. If bicycles are 
> allowed as well, you can indicate this by adding a bicycle=yes tag. Should 
> not be used for paths where the primary or intended usage is unknown. [...]
>
> highway cycleway : For designated cycleways. Add foot=* only if 
> default-access-restrictions do not apply
>
> highway path : A non-specific path. [...]
>
>
> Le mer. 27 mai 2020 à 14:00, Daniel Westergren  a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> 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, never have sac_scale or 
>> mtb:scale, unless we introduce explicit values 

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

[Florimond Berthoux]

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 multiple feature in one tag.

The wiki explain it well :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway

highway footway : For designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for
pedestrians. This includes walking tracks and gravel paths. If bicycles are
allowed as well, you can indicate this by adding a bicycle=yes tag. Should
not be used for paths where the primary or intended usage is unknown. [...]

highway cycleway : For designated cycleways. Add foot=* only if
default-access-restrictions do not apply

highway path : A non-specific path. [...]


Le mer. 27 mai 2020 à 14:00, Daniel Westergren  a écrit :

>
> 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, never have sac_scale or
> mtb:scale, unless we introduce explicit values like sac_scale=no and
> mtb:scale=no. If it has sac_scale=hiking or above, or mtb:scale=0 or above
> (remember, mtb:scale is based on the *Singletrail *Scale and even a value
> of 0 should only be used for a singletrail), then it's not a footway or
> cycleway, but a path. And if it has a sac_scale or mtb:scale value, then we
> should already tell by that, that it's not accessible to everyone.
>
> And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because
> then it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway.
>
> But again, with the current use of highway=path it can be and is used for
> anything. That's why depend on subtags (trolltags) and that's what we need
> to get away from.
>
> So yes, if we could separate footway, cycleway and path clearly from each
> other, then we can know that a path is always (if it's used correctly) used
> for unpaved paths that may not be accessible to people of all abilities.
>
> As for "hiking paths", it's also a word that confuses me. I think we're
> here talking about the way (that has certain physical characteristics), not
> the route, however people may use them (anyone can hike on a path, whether
> it's part of a route or not). And if we can't organize paths hierarchically
> like roads, then also context becomes irrelevant when separating footway
> and cycleway from path.
>
> /Daniel
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

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

[Warin]

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 sac_scale=hiking or even triple tagging with path=hiking can 
lead to the same problems that presently exist.



___
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]

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 is likely the default way of interpreting highway=path with no
> additional tags.
>

What I called a "hiking" path without additional tags is highway=path with
sac_cale=hiking

>
> *I still think the distinction needs to be much more clear between
> path|footway|cycleway for all the cases when no additional tag is being
> used. *
>

The real world situation is much more variegated.
When I see something that look like a track, feels like a track, wide
enough for a tractor, but has a foot-cycle-way blue disk sign (in many
Europens countries) I tag this as a highway=track plus its appropriate
properties tags plus bicycle=designated plus foot designated plus
segregated=no (there is no white line on the forest track.. If it is half
width, it's a path.

> 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). In JOSM I get a warning if I add a combined foot- and
cycleway without adding a segregated tag. *If highway=path with no surface
tag would get the same warning in both JOSM and iD, we'd be getting at
least somewhere.*

JOSM is not messing anything up, it only uses as presets a way of tagging
foot-cycle-ways that is widely used in Germany, Italy, and other countries.
iD does take a different approach, possibly also because the situation in
the US is different.
I don't think it's JOSMs fault. That tagging was already in wide use before
JOSM had it as preset, if I remember well.

> Good that this discussion has lead to some improvement of the description
of sac_scale. As has been mentioned, *sac_scale and mtb:scale need values
for "no"* as well, to actively say that "although this is a path, it
doesn't qualify for a hiking path or an mtb singletrail". *And the
description for those tags would need to emphasize when not to use the tag,
or use the "no" value. Otherwise sac_scale=hiking makes no distinction
whatsoever between a paved path and a hiking path that may be quite
technical.*

I agree with the need for a default value for sac_scale. It should be
sac_scale=hiking. MTV_scale does not need a separate default value, as the
SAC scale "hiking" is clear enough for an  MTB rider as well (I think). The
problem may be that MTB scale=0 assumes no positive gradient (but I am not
an MTB expert)







>
>

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

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 2020 at 16:29, Tod Fitch  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.
>
___
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 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 
website
___
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]

>
> 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 no
additional tags.

I just commented on a new mapper using highway=footway for the above
example. The response I got was that it should probably be footway, as the
path was leading to stairs and as such "not accessible" by bicycle and
therefore a footpath. With no additional tag I would interpret
highway=footway as an urban path with some kind of smooth surface, which
was not the case here and I think it should be highway=path and possible
bicycle=no & mtb=no.

*I still think the distinction needs to be much more clear between
path|footway|cycleway for all the cases when no additional tag is being
used. *Should a footway be used for a natural forest path where it's
unlikely that MTB:s will go? No. But the wiki description leaves the door
open.

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). In JOSM I get a warning if I add a combined foot- and
cycleway without adding a segregated tag. *If highway=path with no surface
tag would get the same warning in both JOSM and iD, we'd be getting at
least somewhere.*

Good that this discussion has lead to some improvement of the description
of sac_scale. As has been mentioned, *sac_scale and mtb:scale need values
for "no"* as well, to actively say that "although this is a path, it
doesn't qualify for a hiking path or an mtb singletrail". *And the
description for those tags would need to emphasize when not to use the tag,
or use the "no" value. Otherwise sac_scale=hiking makes no distinction
whatsoever between a paved path and a hiking path that may be quite
technical.*

/Daniel







>
>

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

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

[Tod Fitch]

> 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, usage can be widened with tags 
> like foot=yes|permissive|designated to describe mixed-use ways (this
> 
> path is being used for two completly different  things:
> (a) a "hiking" path, mostly in non-urban situations, including mountain hiking
> (b) with the additional tagging foot=designated plus bicycle=designated plus 
> segregated=yes|no as a mixed use foot-cycle-way
> 

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.




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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 non-specified usage or mixed use paths
> (including urban paths).
>
> 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, usage can be widened
   with tags like foot=yes|permissive|designated to describe mixed-use ways
   (this

   - *path* is being used for two completly different  things:

(a) a "hiking" path, mostly in non-urban situations, including mountain
hiking
(b) with the additional tagging foot=designated plus bicycle=designated
plus segregated=yes|no as a mixed use foot-cycle-way

All of these are widely used and I think it will be impossible to undo the
tagging.
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
___
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]

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 photoshopped!)
Just accept this as my contribution to lessen the psychological stress of
this never-ending discussion.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Andrew Harvey]

On 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...
> In Sweden, 99% of all cycleways are open to pedestrians and there are few
> footways where bicycles are forbidden. Thus, almost everything becomes a
> path
>
> I was even recommended by one of the most experienced Swedish mappers to
> use highway=footway for a natural forest path a couple of weeks ago...
> Which turns the mess the other way, that what really should be a path
> suddenly can be a footway and then we don't even know how to interpret
> footways... unless other tags, like surface etc. are used, which in a lot
> of cases they are not.
>
> For those combined urban foot- and cycleways, probably something like
> highway=footcycleway should have been introduced instead, to reserve path
> for the cases we're discussing here (which basically implies that it's not
> necessarily accessible to everyone, even if smoothness, sac_scale,
> mtb:scale etc. can be used to specify the difficulty/accessibility of the
> path).
>

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 non-specified usage or mixed use paths
(including urban paths).

These are conflicting and it does seem that OSM has a mix of both styles.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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,
that doesn't tell you it's a footway or a cycleway. It's just a path made
easier.

If I come across an unmapped path with no visible designation, do I not map
it because I don't know what it's for? My solution is: I don't map it
unless I need it in a route I'm mapping. In that case, it's a path, nothing
else. That's all we know.
___
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]

> 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, never have sac_scale or
mtb:scale, unless we introduce explicit values like sac_scale=no and
mtb:scale=no. If it has sac_scale=hiking or above, or mtb:scale=0 or above
(remember, mtb:scale is based on the *Singletrail *Scale and even a value
of 0 should only be used for a singletrail), then it's not a footway or
cycleway, but a path. And if it has a sac_scale or mtb:scale value, then we
should already tell by that, that it's not accessible to everyone.

And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because then
it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway.

But again, with the current use of highway=path it can be and is used for
anything. That's why depend on subtags (trolltags) and that's what we need
to get away from.

So yes, if we could separate footway, cycleway and path clearly from each
other, then we can know that a path is always (if it's used correctly) used
for unpaved paths that may not be accessible to people of all abilities.

As for "hiking paths", it's also a word that confuses me. I think we're
here talking about the way (that has certain physical characteristics), not
the route, however people may use them (anyone can hike on a path, whether
it's part of a route or not). And if we can't organize paths hierarchically
like roads, then also context becomes irrelevant when separating footway
and cycleway from path.

/Daniel
___
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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 hiking, mostly used for hiking, constructed for hikers, etc.) 
or about the physical characteristics (width, surface, composition) or about 
the context (mountain area, wilderness, outside of builtup area, etc.)? 

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

[Ture Pålsson via Tagging]

> 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 the lowest level of that is sac_scale=hiking. This would correspond 
> exactly, in my view, to the new proposed tag value(s) without introducing a 
> new tagging.
> sac_scale=hiking is used 319 785 times - so I do not see a need to create a 
> new tagging meaning exactly the same thing.
> 

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.
___
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]

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, iD is using highway=footway as default for a
> sidewalk.
>

Daniel,

this difference in presets between JOSM and iD for foot-cycle-ways is well
known. And there are more than just these two variants, unfortunately..
I have been saying all the way that we have to live with these - it is much
too late to re-tag them.
What we are discussing now is how to make sure that a hiking path (not a
foot-cycle-way) is tagged correctly as such.
This is not helped by the fact that we do have hundreds of thousands of
ways that are tagged as highway=path and we are discussing 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 the lowest level of that is sac_scale=hiking. This would
correspond exactly, in my view, to the new proposed tag value(s) without
introducing a new tagging.
sac_scale=hiking is used 319 785 times - so I do not see a need to create a
new tagging meaning exactly the same thing.
___
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]

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 basically iD already has a way to avoid highway=path for these combined
foot- and cycleways? But JOSM's preset is messing it up, as is the "you can
use this or you can use that, as you wish" text for highway=path in the
wiki.

iD doesn't seem to include "Cycle and foot path" in the hierarchy under
"Paths" though, so unless you specifically search for that kind of path,
you'll  have to make a choice between footway, cycleway or path.

So is it, as others have suggested, the vague "anything goes"-description
in the wiki and JOSM's presets that have messed up the distinction between
cycleway, footway and path? The core of the issue is obviously that some
people think that path can be used equally for a combined footway/cycleway,
sidewalk etc. that is not specifically designated for ONLY pedestrians OR
cyclists.

/Daniel

Den ons 27 maj 2020 kl 09:03 skrev Daniel Westergren :

> 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 are few
> footways where bicycles are forbidden. Thus, almost everything becomes a
> path
>
> I was even recommended by one of the most experienced Swedish mappers to
> use highway=footway for a natural forest path a couple of weeks ago...
> Which turns the mess the other way, that what really should be a path
> suddenly can be a footway and then we don't even know how to interpret
> footways... unless other tags, like surface etc. are used, which in a lot
> of cases they are not.
>
> For those combined urban foot- and cycleways, probably something like
> highway=footcycleway should have been introduced instead, to reserve path
> for the cases we're discussing here (which basically implies that it's not
> necessarily accessible to everyone, even if smoothness, sac_scale,
> mtb:scale etc. can be used to specify the difficulty/accessibility of the
> path).
>
> Kevin wrote:
>
>
> *It comes down to two basic questions:- What is the minimum set of
> information that a mapper needs to assert, to have a bicycle or pedestrian
> router assess that a way is usable by a pedestrian or cyclist of ordinary
> ability?- What is the minimum set of information that a data consumer needs
> to take into account when making that assessment?  *
>
> Great questions!
>
> Like others have said, I would love if ALL paved footways, cycleways and
> combined foot- and cycleways ALWAYS were tagged with something else than
> path. For that we only have footway and cycleway and when the choice is
> difficult, the path mess has told us to use path together with
> foot|bicycle=designated.
>
> But like Kevin is implying, that a way is designated for pedestrians
> and/or bicycles doesn't mean that any walker or bicyclist can use them.
> Sometimes such a designated way SHOULD be highway=path, while in most cases
> they should probably not. And when they are not, data consumers need to
> assume that people of any ability can use it.
>
> *Two conclusions from the discussions, as I see it*:
>
>- highway=trail or similary would make no difference, as what we seem
>to be after is to make highway=path mean the same thing.
>- The main issue is to use a tagging system that is easy for mappers
>to use and easy for data consumers to interpret. For
>highway=path|footway|cycleway that is currently definitely not the case.
>- Accessibility would likely be an important consideration when
>deciding whether to use path or footway|cycleway|[footcycleway]
>
>
> *Could we perhaps summarize suggestions to something like the following?*
>
>1. Clarify the wiki and editor descriptions to ALWAYS use footway or
>cycleway for urban, paved foot- and/or cycleways that are accessbile to
>people of all abilities. The difficulty will be the cases when a way can be
>used by either. Then we would still depend on subtags to specify that it
>can actually be used by both pedestrians and cyclists.
>2. Clarify the wiki and editor descriptions to NEVER use path for
>these "urban foot- and/or cycleways", in order for data consumers to never
>use highway=path for people with disabilities, normal bicycles etc, unless
>tags like smoothness imply that they are still accessible to most (but
>probably not all).
>3. Possibly introduce a new tag for those cases of combined usage for
>urban foot- and cycleways (whether paved or with other smooth, prepared
>surfaces to make them accessible for most), in order to NOT use
>highway=path (like presets 

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

[Tod Fitch]

> 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 tags would lead to cleaner tagging.
> 
Therein lies the issue.

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

[1] 
https://retiredtechie.fitchfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IMG_0420-768x1024.jpg
[2] 
https://retiredtechie.fitchfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IMG_0425-768x1024.jpg
[3] 
https://retiredtechie.fitchfamily.org/2020/02/17/distance-between-trail-junctions/


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

[Daniel Westergren]

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 are few
footways where bicycles are forbidden. Thus, almost everything becomes a
path

I was even recommended by one of the most experienced Swedish mappers to
use highway=footway for a natural forest path a couple of weeks ago...
Which turns the mess the other way, that what really should be a path
suddenly can be a footway and then we don't even know how to interpret
footways... unless other tags, like surface etc. are used, which in a lot
of cases they are not.

For those combined urban foot- and cycleways, probably something like
highway=footcycleway should have been introduced instead, to reserve path
for the cases we're discussing here (which basically implies that it's not
necessarily accessible to everyone, even if smoothness, sac_scale,
mtb:scale etc. can be used to specify the difficulty/accessibility of the
path).

Kevin wrote:


*It comes down to two basic questions:- What is the minimum set of
information that a mapper needs to assert, to have a bicycle or pedestrian
router assess that a way is usable by a pedestrian or cyclist of ordinary
ability?- What is the minimum set of information that a data consumer needs
to take into account when making that assessment?  *

Great questions!

Like others have said, I would love if ALL paved footways, cycleways and
combined foot- and cycleways ALWAYS were tagged with something else than
path. For that we only have footway and cycleway and when the choice is
difficult, the path mess has told us to use path together with
foot|bicycle=designated.

But like Kevin is implying, that a way is designated for pedestrians and/or
bicycles doesn't mean that any walker or bicyclist can use them. Sometimes
such a designated way SHOULD be highway=path, while in most cases they
should probably not. And when they are not, data consumers need to assume
that people of any ability can use it.

*Two conclusions from the discussions, as I see it*:

   - highway=trail or similary would make no difference, as what we seem to
   be after is to make highway=path mean the same thing.
   - The main issue is to use a tagging system that is easy for mappers to
   use and easy for data consumers to interpret. For
   highway=path|footway|cycleway that is currently definitely not the case.
   - Accessibility would likely be an important consideration when deciding
   whether to use path or footway|cycleway|[footcycleway]


*Could we perhaps summarize suggestions to something like the following?*

   1. Clarify the wiki and editor descriptions to ALWAYS use footway or
   cycleway for urban, paved foot- and/or cycleways that are accessbile to
   people of all abilities. The difficulty will be the cases when a way can be
   used by either. Then we would still depend on subtags to specify that it
   can actually be used by both pedestrians and cyclists.
   2. Clarify the wiki and editor descriptions to NEVER use path for these
   "urban foot- and/or cycleways", in order for data consumers to never use
   highway=path for people with disabilities, normal bicycles etc, unless tags
   like smoothness imply that they are still accessible to most (but probably
   not all).
   3. Possibly introduce a new tag for those cases of combined usage for
   urban foot- and cycleways (whether paved or with other smooth, prepared
   surfaces to make them accessible for most), in order to NOT use
   highway=path (like presets now do) for that.


Is introducing a new combined tag worth the effort? If not, how can we
point mappers to use existing tags in a way that makes the tagging useful?

/Daniel



Den ons 27 maj 2020 kl 07:43 skrev Ture Pålsson via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
> 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 of them, however, and given the current state of the Wiki, I can’t
> really say that those others are *wrong*.
>
> And if I draw a new way in JOSM, and then pick the preset which has the
> ”white walkers above white bicycle on a blue background” [1] icon, which is
> what I would do as a naïve mapper to map an urban cycleway (most of them
> are shared around here, to the annoyance of cyclists and pedestrians
> alike), I get highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated.
>
> So, as I have said before, when rendering a map and faced with a
> highway=footway or highway=path I can always make an initial guess about
> how to render it, but I have to be prepared to consider at least
> *=designated, surface and width as well.
>
> [1]

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

[Ture Pålsson via Tagging]

> 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 of them, however, and given the current state of the Wiki, I can’t 
really say that those others are *wrong*.

And if I draw a new way in JOSM, and then pick the preset which has the ”white 
walkers above white bicycle on a blue background” [1] icon, which is what I 
would do as a naïve mapper to map an urban cycleway (most of them are shared 
around here, to the annoyance of cyclists and pedestrians alike), I get 
highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated.

So, as I have said before, when rendering a map and faced with a 
highway=footway or highway=path I can always make an initial guess about how to 
render it, but I have to be prepared to consider at least *=designated, surface 
and width as well.

[1] 
https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/vagtrafik/Vagmarken/Pabudsmarken/Pabjuden-gang--och-cykelbana/
 



___
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

[Yves]

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
>
>[1]
>https://retiredtechie.fitchfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IMG_0420-768x1024.jpg
>[2]
>https://retiredtechie.fitchfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IMG_0425-768x1024.jpg

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. 
Thus I'm completely missing the point of this long discussion. 
Yves 

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

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

[Warin]

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, grass_quai and peat_path.



Umm highway=flat_path might be better :) And then there might be a need 
for highway=hill_path ... :))



-

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 tags would lead to cleaner tagging.



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

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

[Tod Fitch]

> 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 focus for cycleway and footway.
> 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 exclusive (or almost exclusive ) horse trails
> path - for everything else.   Implies not paved.  Routers should not route 
> road bikers here.
> 
> The difficulty for bikes (& maybe hiking) can be simple green/blue/black 
> similar to what is used on US bike trails, and ski areas.
> 
> The tricky part is that such redefining is not solving problem of already 
> collected data.
> 
> You need to resurvey all already collected data and mark it as reviewed (by 
> adding some tag,
> for example reviewed_to_new_path_scheme=yes or explicit surface value).
> 
> Overall I see no benefit over explicit tagging of a surface value.

Not necessarily a tricky part: First, this is more of a clarification than a 
redefinition. Second, there is no need to immediately retag everything as the 
situation before clarification of these meanings isn’t really any different 
that it would be after (renderers will have to rely on the current jumbled mess 
of modifier tags for a while).

But agreeing on these definitions would mean in the medium term renderers and 
routers could clean up their logic which would the point to ways that have 
tagging that needs review (when a trail ceases to be shown or routed over it is 
likely someone will notice and fix the tagging).

In my part of the world the interpretation of the existing tags pretty much 
matches the above so little, if any, retagging of hiking paths or city park 
walkways would be needed in my area.

Cheers!
Tod



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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 exclusive (or almost exclusive ) horse trails
> path - for everything else.   Implies not paved.  Routers should not route
> road bikers here.
>

Very straight-forward, simple & KISS! :-)

I would add
" path - for everything else.   Implies not paved.  Routers should not
route", *cyclists, walkers or vehicles* here.

If you know it's there, know your own ability & capability, & still
deliberately want to ride / walk / drive there, that's fine, but no system
should ever "send" you along the path.

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 - 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 exclusive (or almost exclusive ) horse trails
> path - for everything else.   Implies not paved.  Routers should not route 
> road bikers here.
>
> The difficulty for bikes (& maybe hiking) can be simple green/blue/black 
> similar to what is used on US bike trails, and ski areas.
>

The tricky part is that such redefining is not solving problem of already 
collected data.

You need to resurvey all already collected data and mark it as reviewed (by 
adding some tag,
for example reviewed_to_new_path_scheme=yes or explicit surface value).

Overall I see no benefit over explicit tagging of a surface value.

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

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

[brad]

On 5/26/20 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 exactly this new tag would cover 
exactly and what it wouldn't.

I've said repeatedly - but people are not listening - that what's
needed is the opposite. More specific ways to tag the hazards of a
technical trail is the exact opposite of what I want.

A data consumer cannot draw any inference from the absence of a tag.

We already have an enormous cauldron of tag soup to describe
smoothness, surface, width,incline, steps, visibility, tracktype,
overall technicality (sac_scale, mtb_scale), and $LC_DEITY knows what
else, to characterize specific hazards. Many of these (smoothness,
surface, visibility) have ways to characterize freedom from those
hazards. Some (most notably sac_scale and mtb_scale) do not. This lack
is _part_ of the problem, so _part_ of what I want is to be able to
say something like `mtb_scale=0` or `sac_scale=no` - to say, "this way
is non-technical." But that's a very minor issue.

i don't think that it's going to work to have to enumerate every
possible hazard and assert that a way is free from it. Rather, in
general, for a footway, we need a way to assert 'this path is
generally OK for a person with less-than-ideal physical fitness or
small children in tow." For a cycleway, we need a way to assert, "this
path is generally OK for a road bike." This assertion cannot be made
by omitting tags. A router cannot tell the difference between 'the
mapper didn't say anything about difficulties or hazards', and 'the
mapper thinks it's OK.'

(Feel free to stop reading here. The rest of this message tries to add
detail. The key point is "a positive assertion that the given way is
OK for a pedestrian/cyclist of ordinary ability".)



The assertion needs to be as simple as possible.  which is what leads
to the discussion of separating urban paths from technical trails
using a top-level key (and the misconception that there's actually a
difference between `cycleway` and `path`).  I agree with the others
who say that train left the station a long time ago, and we're
unlikely to catch up with it to board it.

What I'm asking for is some minimal set of tags, that we can expect a
mapper to provide as a matter of course, to assert that a way is free
from unusual hazards. To assert that a walker of ordinary ability,
dressed in ordinary street clothes, and perhaps with small children in
tow, can use the path. To assert that a cyclist of ordinary ability,
aboard an ordinary road bike can ride it. Adding more tags to describe
that something does have difficulties or hazards will not help.

Emphasis there is also on the word, 'minimal'. What is the minimal
information that a mapper needs to provide to let a router draw that
conclusion? Obviously, if we were civil engineers assessing trail
safety for people with disabilities, small children, or racing wheels,
we'd have a lot of formal evaluations to conduct. But if I have to
bring a clinometer (or transit and rod, etc.), make the delicate
distinction between pea gravel and compacted-mixed-gravel-with-fines,
or cobblestone and sett, and so on, before I can say, "this is a
regular old path in the city park", it's not going to happen!  The
best I can do is to presume that whoever built the path did the job,
or do the required analysis on a set of ways that's too small to be
really useful.

The other side of the same coin is that I shouldn't need expert
knowledge and a detailed characterization of the hazards to be able to
map, "nope! Not going there today!" We enjoy over-classifying
everything, and making the fine distinctions is wonderful. But how far
would we have got in mapping if a mapper couldn't say, "there's a
bridge here" without needing to know the difference between a
king-post and a bowstring truss?

All of the tags that assert technical hazards are, in the current
scheme, trolltags. We've rejected that sort of thing for cars. We no
longer say `highway=tertiary demolished=yes` or `highway=tertiary
construction=yes` because we recognize that the secondary tag says,
"just kidding! You actually can't drive on this!"  We realized that
routers for cars can't make effective use of an entirely open-ended
set of tags that all say, "don't use this road", and we've changed the
schema to fix it, with things like the lifecycle prefix.  I want the
same level of respect for walkers and cyclists.

It comes down to two basic questions:
- What is the minimum set of information that a mapper needs to
assert, to have a bicycle or pedestrian router assess that a way is
usable by a pedestrian or cyclist of ordinary ability?
- What is the minimum set of information that a data consumer needs to
take into account when making that assessment?

By paying careful attention to eliminating 

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 and what it wouldn't.

I've said repeatedly - but people are not listening - that what's
needed is the opposite. More specific ways to tag the hazards of a
technical trail is the exact opposite of what I want.

A data consumer cannot draw any inference from the absence of a tag.

We already have an enormous cauldron of tag soup to describe
smoothness, surface, width,incline, steps, visibility, tracktype,
overall technicality (sac_scale, mtb_scale), and $LC_DEITY knows what
else, to characterize specific hazards. Many of these (smoothness,
surface, visibility) have ways to characterize freedom from those
hazards. Some (most notably sac_scale and mtb_scale) do not. This lack
is _part_ of the problem, so _part_ of what I want is to be able to
say something like `mtb_scale=0` or `sac_scale=no` - to say, "this way
is non-technical." But that's a very minor issue.

i don't think that it's going to work to have to enumerate every
possible hazard and assert that a way is free from it. Rather, in
general, for a footway, we need a way to assert 'this path is
generally OK for a person with less-than-ideal physical fitness or
small children in tow." For a cycleway, we need a way to assert, "this
path is generally OK for a road bike." This assertion cannot be made
by omitting tags. A router cannot tell the difference between 'the
mapper didn't say anything about difficulties or hazards', and 'the
mapper thinks it's OK.'

(Feel free to stop reading here. The rest of this message tries to add
detail. The key point is "a positive assertion that the given way is
OK for a pedestrian/cyclist of ordinary ability".)



The assertion needs to be as simple as possible.  which is what leads
to the discussion of separating urban paths from technical trails
using a top-level key (and the misconception that there's actually a
difference between `cycleway` and `path`).  I agree with the others
who say that train left the station a long time ago, and we're
unlikely to catch up with it to board it.

What I'm asking for is some minimal set of tags, that we can expect a
mapper to provide as a matter of course, to assert that a way is free
from unusual hazards. To assert that a walker of ordinary ability,
dressed in ordinary street clothes, and perhaps with small children in
tow, can use the path. To assert that a cyclist of ordinary ability,
aboard an ordinary road bike can ride it. Adding more tags to describe
that something does have difficulties or hazards will not help.

Emphasis there is also on the word, 'minimal'. What is the minimal
information that a mapper needs to provide to let a router draw that
conclusion? Obviously, if we were civil engineers assessing trail
safety for people with disabilities, small children, or racing wheels,
we'd have a lot of formal evaluations to conduct. But if I have to
bring a clinometer (or transit and rod, etc.), make the delicate
distinction between pea gravel and compacted-mixed-gravel-with-fines,
or cobblestone and sett, and so on, before I can say, "this is a
regular old path in the city park", it's not going to happen!  The
best I can do is to presume that whoever built the path did the job,
or do the required analysis on a set of ways that's too small to be
really useful.

The other side of the same coin is that I shouldn't need expert
knowledge and a detailed characterization of the hazards to be able to
map, "nope! Not going there today!" We enjoy over-classifying
everything, and making the fine distinctions is wonderful. But how far
would we have got in mapping if a mapper couldn't say, "there's a
bridge here" without needing to know the difference between a
king-post and a bowstring truss?

All of the tags that assert technical hazards are, in the current
scheme, trolltags. We've rejected that sort of thing for cars. We no
longer say `highway=tertiary demolished=yes` or `highway=tertiary
construction=yes` because we recognize that the secondary tag says,
"just kidding! You actually can't drive on this!"  We realized that
routers for cars can't make effective use of an entirely open-ended
set of tags that all say, "don't use this road", and we've changed the
schema to fix it, with things like the lifecycle prefix.  I want the
same level of respect for walkers and cyclists.

It comes down to two basic questions:
- What is the minimum set of information that a mapper needs to
assert, to have a bicycle or pedestrian router assess that a way is
usable by a pedestrian or cyclist of ordinary ability?
- What is the minimum set of information that a data consumer needs to
take into account when making that assessment?

By paying careful attention to eliminating trolltags, we've nearly
answered 

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

[brad]

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 actual tag name to what it's 
known as locally. The tag value is only meaningful for OSM insiders.


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



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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 
>> 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.
>>
>
> The text and image at the top of > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath 
> >  seems to indicate 
> that highway=path is mainly intended for more or less unprepared paths. Yet, 
> the examples at the bottom of the page show how to tag paved, signed, urban 
> foot- and cycleways.
>
Changed a bit in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dpath=1995169=1993843

I have somewhere great photo for top image, with asphalt cycleway ending and 
turning into 
unpaved path. But I am unable to find it now.

Has anybody got an such image with both paved and unpaved path on an open 
license?

> And I am fairy sure I have seen people advocate that highway=footway and 
> =cycleway should be deprecated and replaced with =path plus various extra 
> tags.
>
I would support exact opposite move, though currently 
highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated seems to be standard.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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 Nederland usually just means you can walk it, probably
cycle it on an all terrain bike, and that's all we know. Some could be
highway=track, but most often that just means you can see recent tractor
marks there which can be completely absent next year and reappear the
year after.

Many are used to provide a route over an area. E.g. [highway=path]
[surface=sand] to cross a beach, [highway=path][surface=grass] over a
grassy multipolygon, [highway=path] [surface=paved] over a pedestrian area.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Andrew Harvey]

On 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 the
> various types can be described with existing tags.
> A hiking route (sometimes called a hiking trail) is a concept that is
> clearly defined in the wiki.
>

>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 and what it wouldn't.

A hiking route relation can go over a mixture of way types including
highway=track, whereas this is about the way itself.

Both are very widely, and successfully used.
> Dictionaries do not agree on whether a path is a type of trail or a trail
> is type of path or whether they are synonyms. And I think this is at the
> base of the discussion.
> I would like to remind us that the British-English language words that we
> use in OSM tags are code words to make life easier, the meaning of the code
> words is defined by the mapping practice and that mapping practice is
> documented in the wiki. The common language meaning of these code words is
> in principle independent of the OSM meaning of the codes, and in that sense
> irrelevant.
>

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 actual tag name to what it's known as
locally. The tag value is only meaningful for OSM insiders.
___
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

[Ture Pålsson via Tagging]

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 
> various types can be described with existing tags.

The text and image at the top of 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath 
 seems to indicate that 
highway=path is mainly intended for more or less unprepared paths. Yet, the 
examples at the bottom of the page show how to tag paved, signed, urban foot- 
and cycleways.

And I am fairy sure I have seen people advocate that highway=footway and 
=cycleway should be deprecated and replaced with =path plus various extra tags.

Personally, I would love to see highway=path in the woods and =cycleway/footway 
for the purpose-built stuff, but existing tagging seems to disagree. Only a few 
days ago, someone changed a >2-metre-wide, paved, signed [1], lit (I may be 
wrong about that), cycleway near where I live from highway=cycleway to 
highway=path.

So the problem is not that we can’t describe things, but that there are too 
many ways to describe them. The reason that I have the complicated rule set I 
described earlier for rendering highway=path is not that I think it’s fun, but 
that it’s necessary to make sense of the data.

Admittedly, adding yet another tag to the soup might not be the right solution 
to that problem...

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png___
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

[Richard Fairhurst]

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.

In some usages (particularly American English), "trail" can mean any
medium/long-distance off-road path, including nicely manicured, tarmaced
bike routes. For example, the Katy Trail, the Trail of the Coeur d'Alenes,
and brands such as Rails-to-Trails and traillink.com. I suspect that
highway=trail would immediately be repurposed for those and we'd be deeper
into the same mess. OSM, of course, speaks British English, but we do try to
avoid obvious ambiguities (hence footway=sidewalk rather than =pavement).

highway=mountain_path works for me for tagging mountain paths.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
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]

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 route (sometimes called a hiking trail) is a concept that is
clearly defined in the wiki.
Both are very widely, and successfully used.
Dictionaries do not agree on whether a path is a type of trail or a trail
is type of path or whether they are synonyms. And I think this is at the
base of the discussion.
I would like to remind us that the British-English language words that we
use in OSM tags are code words to make life easier, the meaning of the code
words is defined by the mapping practice and that mapping practice is
documented in the wiki. The common language meaning of these code words is
in principle independent of the OSM meaning of the codes, and in that sense
irrelevant.

I still do not understand why we cannot describe well a mountain hiking
path with the existing tagging.
And what would the additional value path=trail (whatever it means) add
other than making life even more complicated for hiking routing developers?

In the context of this discussion, I would like to point to a recent new
tag which may help hiking trail mappers: Triggered by the collaboration
between OSM and the Italian Alpine Club (CAI), we do have now an additional
tagging instrument to characterize the difficulty of an entire hiking trail
relation with the tag cai_scale
. While
sac_cale is applied to every single way of a hiking trail relation,
cai_scale is assigned to the relation.

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

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

[Andrew Harvey]

On 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 seems like an improvement to me.
>
> However, I note that the translation on the wiki mentions trail markings
> several times, while the original German SAC text doesn't really mention
> markings at all. Instead, SAC mentions trail visibility several times. In
> OSM terms, the following is roughly true:
>
> T1 ~ trail_visibility=excellent
> T2 ~ trail_visibility=good
> T3 ~ trail_visibility=intermediate
> T4 ~ trail_visibility=bad
> T5 ~ trail_visibility=horrible
> T6 ~ trail_visibility=no
>
> Note that both T1 and trail_visibility=excellent can be achieved without
> any markings whatsoever. I think it would be best to remove the mention of
> trail markings in favour of links to trail_visibility.
>
> Alas, I haven't found a good way to express this on the wiki.
>
> Also, some T4+ trails out there have excellent visibility and some trails
> that are otherwise T1 have horrible or no visibility.
>
> The SAC scale does consider trail visibility. But should sac_scale=*
> consider it as well, and if so, to what extent?
>

I don't think sac_scale should consider trail_visibility. For the most part
I see sac_scale as how technical the path is which is independent of how
technical the trackpath is. You could have a path that is well marked with
guideposts so easy to follow, but might have ropes in place or rungs which
make it quite technical. Similarly you could have an easy non-technical
path that is just not well marked or well trodden so has bad trail
visibility. It's important to be able to tag these two concepts
independently.

So regardless of what the SAC standard says, in OSM the sac_scale has
become the defacto tag for how technical the path is.
___
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

[Arne Johannessen]

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 on the wiki mentions trail markings 
several times, while the original German SAC text doesn't really mention 
markings at all. Instead, SAC mentions trail visibility several times. In OSM 
terms, the following is roughly true:

T1 ~ trail_visibility=excellent
T2 ~ trail_visibility=good
T3 ~ trail_visibility=intermediate
T4 ~ trail_visibility=bad
T5 ~ trail_visibility=horrible
T6 ~ trail_visibility=no

Note that both T1 and trail_visibility=excellent can be achieved without any 
markings whatsoever. I think it would be best to remove the mention of trail 
markings in favour of links to trail_visibility.

Alas, I haven't found a good way to express this on the wiki.

Also, some T4+ trails out there have excellent visibility and some trails that 
are otherwise T1 have horrible or no visibility.

The SAC scale does consider trail visibility. But should sac_scale=* consider 
it as well, and if so, to what extent?


> [...]
> 
> Let me reiterate that the subkey that's needed is actually the one
> that asserts 'this IS what one would expect of an urban or suburban
> footway', rather than 'this is a relatively unimproved "natural"
> trail'.

Right.


-- 
Arne Johannessen



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

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

[brad]

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 
separately

mapped sidewalks has it)


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


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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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)

___
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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> 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 whether the
unpaved foot path in the mountains, between remote villages, should be
tagged highway=footway or highway=path, for example. They are certainly not
designed for bicycles or horses (most of the bridges are only one narrow
log wide and there are many stiles and ladders to cross), but there is no
legal access prohibitions.

While most of this discussion has been considering recreational trails in
Western countries, it is important to remember than most unpaved footways,
paths and trails in the world are located in other countries. Remote areas
in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania have extensive networks of
unpaved paths between remote villages in deserts, mountains and tropical
forests where there are no roads for 2-track motor vehicles.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:12 PM Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:

> 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 the highway=path classification (even under the
> > > catch-all definition of OSM).
> >
> > The first problem with the sac_scale is that it's not got anything at
> > the low end. For trails in urban and suburban areas, we want to know,
> > for instance, whether the trail might be accessible to the disabled or
> > to small children. That's actually the single biggest problem here.
>
> sac_scale is useful for what it was made for, namely hiking trails.
> It was never meant to be used on urban paths. In fact, the presence
> of the tag tells you that the path in question is not an urban path.
> Complaining that it has no values for urban accessibility is like
> complaining
> that all the values for the waterway key are unsuitable for highways.
>
> > Without delving into a ton of auxiliary information, there's no
> > difference between an urban footway and a wilderness trail!  For that
> > reason, 'surface' and 'smoothness' and 'incline' and 'sac_scale' are
> > all trolltags: they destroy fundamental expectations (at least to
> > urbanites) of what a 'path' is. (Those false expectations are
> > responsible for many outdoor accidents in my part of the world - I'm
> > close enough to several large cities that we get many unprepared
> > tourists.)
>
> I highly doubt that somebody who doesn't think twice about using a
> path in the mountains/outback without experience and gear will be deterred
> by a suitability tag. The real problem with those people is the lack
> of thinking not the lack of tagging.
>
> 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. They would disappear from the map for
> a while until renderers and apps have adapted to the new schema.
> I'd consider this actually a plus because only the data users that
> are really interested in outdoors would adapt while for everybody else the
> trails are just gone. And for the ones who do want to use them, we'd
> send a very strong message: this is a different kind of highway,
> you cannot just handle it like every other path. (I hope even the
> Carto people finally get the message. The fact that they thought it
> was a good idea to munge path and footway together is partially what
> got us into this mess.)
>
> Sarah
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Sarah Hoffmann]

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 the highway=path classification (even under the
> > catch-all definition of OSM).
> 
> The first problem with the sac_scale is that it's not got anything at
> the low end. For trails in urban and suburban areas, we want to know,
> for instance, whether the trail might be accessible to the disabled or
> to small children. That's actually the single biggest problem here.

sac_scale is useful for what it was made for, namely hiking trails.
It was never meant to be used on urban paths. In fact, the presence
of the tag tells you that the path in question is not an urban path.
Complaining that it has no values for urban accessibility is like complaining
that all the values for the waterway key are unsuitable for highways.

> Without delving into a ton of auxiliary information, there's no
> difference between an urban footway and a wilderness trail!  For that
> reason, 'surface' and 'smoothness' and 'incline' and 'sac_scale' are
> all trolltags: they destroy fundamental expectations (at least to
> urbanites) of what a 'path' is. (Those false expectations are
> responsible for many outdoor accidents in my part of the world - I'm
> close enough to several large cities that we get many unprepared
> tourists.)

I highly doubt that somebody who doesn't think twice about using a
path in the mountains/outback without experience and gear will be deterred
by a suitability tag. The real problem with those people is the lack
of thinking not the lack of tagging.

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. They would disappear from the map for
a while until renderers and apps have adapted to the new schema.
I'd consider this actually a plus because only the data users that
are really interested in outdoors would adapt while for everybody else the
trails are just gone. And for the ones who do want to use them, we'd
send a very strong message: this is a different kind of highway,
you cannot just handle it like every other path. (I hope even the
Carto people finally get the message. The fact that they thought it
was a good idea to munge path and footway together is partially what
got us into this mess.)

Sarah

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

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

[brad]

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 redundant 
footpath/cycleway/bridleway/path tags.   Trying to use the function 
instead of the physical characteristics.   It works for roads, but not 
for multiuser trails.


Someone asked what the hierarchy is.   Trails don't usually have a 
hierarchy like roads do.
Someone discussed purposely built paths vs naturally created trails.  
This doesn't work.  A lot of new trails are being built and they are 
designed and built by man and machine.  In steep terrain many old 
naturally created trails are eroded and rutted and closed down, or 
rerouted, or maintained by volunteers.


On 5/25/20 11:51 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:


Let me reiterate that the subkey that's needed is actually the one
that asserts 'this IS what one would expect of an urban or suburban
footway', rather than 'this is a relatively unimproved "natural"
trail'. We already have many attributes that would indicate that a
trail might be relatively unimproved (`surface=ground`; `incline=*`;
`wheelchair=no`; `width=*`, `smoothness=*`, `sac_scale=*` and so on).
The fundamental problem is that it is not safe to draw any conclusion
from the absence of such a tag. A mapper may have tagged a wilderness
trail as `highway=path` or `highway=footway` and simply not added the
other attributes.

The best way to help the data consumer will be to have a tagging
scheme that allows asserting 'this IS an urban/suburban/front-country
footpath' as well as 'this is a relatively unimproved trail'.  It's
true at the start that providing such a thing will leave most
`highway=path` features ambiguous, but it at least would open a way
forward for disambiguating them. `path=trail` will NOT accomplish that
goal, because it still leaves two choices: 'this is a trail', and
'this is unknown/ambiguous'.



___
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]

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 the second grade' which I
changed to 'Isolated easy climbing pitches up to UIAA grade 2'.

My German is not secure, and the original
(https://www.sac-cas.ch/fileadmin/Ausbildung_und_Wissen/Tourenplanung/Schwierigkeitsskala/Wanderskala-SAC.pdf)
is in Süddeutsch, verging on Schwyzertütsch, so please check me out on
it!

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:42 AM Daniel Westergren  wrote:
> In Swedish we have basically "väg", which would translate to road or way, 
> while "stig" would translate to footpath/path/trail,
"Väg" is cognate to the English "way" - go back to the Tenth Century,
and they're the same word. Old Norse 'stígr,' 'wanderer,' appears not
to have survived into English, although one word that we use for the
concept clearly has Norse roots: 'vagabond.' 'Path' is of
West-Germanic origin, and has cognates in German, Dutch, Frisian,
Luxembourgeois, and (!) Finnish, but apparently not the Scandinavian
languages. "Track" came to English from Old French, but is almost
certainly a Norse borrowing. It's related to English words such as
'tread' and 'trek', Norwegian 'trå', and Swedish 'träda'.

> Sorry for having caused a very long, but certainly very interesting and 
> engaging thread on this never-ending topic. If it was discussed this way 12 
> (?) years ago, things would have been simpler. I understand the consensus as 
> although it would have been good, it's probably too late for a separate 
> highway tag for "trail" or whatever we call it and the only way forward is a 
> subtag like "highway=trail"? Although what we need then is a clear definition 
> of what it is and a way to handle all the cases when this subkey will not be 
> used.

Let me reiterate that the subkey that's needed is actually the one
that asserts 'this IS what one would expect of an urban or suburban
footway', rather than 'this is a relatively unimproved "natural"
trail'. We already have many attributes that would indicate that a
trail might be relatively unimproved (`surface=ground`; `incline=*`;
`wheelchair=no`; `width=*`, `smoothness=*`, `sac_scale=*` and so on).
The fundamental problem is that it is not safe to draw any conclusion
from the absence of such a tag. A mapper may have tagged a wilderness
trail as `highway=path` or `highway=footway` and simply not added the
other attributes.

The best way to help the data consumer will be to have a tagging
scheme that allows asserting 'this IS an urban/suburban/front-country
footpath' as well as 'this is a relatively unimproved trail'.  It's
true at the start that providing such a thing will leave most
`highway=path` features ambiguous, but it at least would open a way
forward for disambiguating them. `path=trail` will NOT accomplish that
goal, because it still leaves two choices: 'this is a trail', and
'this is unknown/ambiguous'.
-- 
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

[Daniel Westergren]

>
> 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
> locally known and across languages.
>

You're touching a very important topic here, linguistics. We use different
terms in different parts of the globe. And a path has in English a much
wider meaning than when translated to other languages, like Swedish.

In Swedish we have basically "*väg", *which would translate to road or way,
while "*stig" *would translate to footpath/path/trail, basically what we're
discussing here, i.e. the narrower definition of path.

   - bil*väg*: car road (or "car way")
   - bruks*väg*/skogs*väg*/jordbruks*väg* (= track)
   - cykel*väg*: cycleway
   - gång*väg*: footway (= part of the official network)
   - gång*stig *or simply stig (as it can just as well be used for MTB
   etc.).

My point is that there is a linguistic different between different kinds of
"väg", all of which are part of the officially built road/cycleway/footway
network vs naturally created paths/trails. The use of highway=path for both
these purposes is probably the main confusion for me.

Sure, there is a greyzone for cases like purposely built, often
urban/semi-urban, "natural paths" or paths that have been groomed to
increase their accessibility for visually impaired, wheelchairs, children
etc. But as has been mentioned in this thread, those greyzone cases are
minor compared to the overall problem of the lack of this distinction.

Sorry for having caused a very long, but certainly very interesting and
engaging thread on this never-ending topic. If it was discussed this way 12
(?) years ago, things would have been simpler. I understand the consensus
as although it would have been good, it's probably too late for a separate
highway tag for "trail" or whatever we call it and the only way forward is
a subtag like "highway=trail"? Although what we need then is a clear
definition of what it is and a way to handle all the cases when this subkey
will not be used.

For such a definition we probably need people from many different countries
chipping in, to make it clear enough for all languages and locations.

/Daniel






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

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

[Andrew Harvey]

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 walking local wilderness trails with their dog in a
> single day than all “backpackers” on earth in a year. Few-to-none of these
> are “day-hike” or “trekking” routes, yet they are most definitely “trails”.
> I do not need to know the sac scale to tag it as a trail.
>
> And How are those routes “hiking”? There are plenty of trails not meant
> for hiking. Hiking is a leisure pastime. A trail is type of way.
>

But how would you define what a trail is?

Up in this thread Daniel noted some definitions, but I think that needs to
be written up as a proposal for where it would apply.

According to the Cambridge dictionary, a trail is "a path through a
> countryside, mountain, or forest area, often made or used for a particular
> purpose:
> - a forest/mountain trail
> - a walking/snowshoeing/cross-country skiing trail"
> Other dictionaries use "beaten path", "a track made by passage especially
> through a wilderness" or similar.
>
> To me, the main difference is between a beaten path vs a path that has
> been purposely groomed.




I can tag a track without defining it’s tracktype=* it’s a track - _and
> then_ further defined by tracktype=* .
>
> Do I have to know the width to tag a road? Do I need to know the number of
> stairs or the incline of the steps to tag it as steps?
>
> No.
>
> It’s a residential road. Steps. A cycleway. A trail.
>
> The attributes of the way do not define it as that type of way - a named
> tag anyone can use does, including someone who can’t define its sac scale -
> or has no idea what the heck that is.
>
> Trails should Have _never_ been lumped in with path. It was a _horrible_
> decision, like motorways and driveways sharing a main tag because cars use
> both.
>
> At least sub-tagging them to be able to easily separate them _and then_,
> when possible define further characteristics __when possible__ with more
> specific tags, like sac scale.
>

I get your point, and agree, but for highway=footway there is a definition
on the wiki of what that covers, same for cycleway, residential road,
highway=track, etc. we don't just say tag a track as highway=track.

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
locally known and across languages.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[John Willis via Tagging]

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. Few-to-none of these are 
“day-hike” or “trekking” routes, yet they are most definitely “trails”. I do 
not need to know the sac scale to tag it as a trail. 

And How are those routes “hiking”? There are plenty of trails not meant for 
hiking. Hiking is a leisure pastime. A trail is type of way. 

I can tag a track without defining it’s tracktype=* it’s a track - _and then_ 
further defined by tracktype=* .

Do I have to know the width to tag a road? Do I need to know the number of 
stairs or the incline of the steps to tag it as steps? 

No. 

It’s a residential road. Steps. A cycleway. A trail. 

The attributes of the way do not define it as that type of way - a named tag 
anyone can use does, including someone who can’t define its sac scale - or has 
no idea what the heck that is. 

Trails should Have _never_ been lumped in with path. It was a _horrible_ 
decision, like motorways and driveways sharing a main tag because cars use 
both. 

At least sub-tagging them to be able to easily separate them _and then_, when 
possible define further characteristics __when possible__ with more specific 
tags, like sac scale. 

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

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

[Andrew Harvey]

On 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 break her leg crossing a stream because we routed her on
> a trail down a ravine rather than on the longer, yet safer sidewalks down
> along the roads or paths through a local park because there is no way to
> say “THIS IS A TRAIL, not a walkway through a playground” in OSM.
>
> We do have that: `sac_scale=hiking`; as I understand it, few trails go
> beyond 'hiking', so that's at least better than nothing. (It still may
> suffer from underestimating the trail, leading city folk to the
> sketchy rock scrambles when they're expecting a nice level dirt path,
> so try to get the scale at least reasonable.)
>
> What we don't have - at all - is the complement: 'THIS IS INDEED A
> PATH'.  When we see 'highway=path', we don't know whether it's indeed
> a path, or a hiking trail where the mapper didn't assign an
> `sac_scale`.  We need a way to assert 'THIS IS A PATH' that doesn't
> depend on the absence of a trolltag.
>
> I can't stress enough that as long as we have the ambiguity, the only
> way to 'fail soft' is to support the assertion 'this is relatively
> safe', because we can deduce nothing from the absence of a 'this is
> dangerous' assertion.
>
> Incomplete information should 'fail soft'.
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:32 PM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, the biggest question is how do you define that criteria for what
> is going to be tagged a a hiking trail and not a hiking trail.
> >
> > Eg. if you have a smooth paved track through the rainforest that the
> authorities created for grandparents and strollers, is that a hiking trail
> just because it's in a forest area? What about a stroll through the hills
> of grasslands that have no forest or mountains, is that marked as a hiking
> trail?
>
> No, just being in a forest doesn't make something a trail.  I think
> that it's pretty safe to assume that 'surface=compacted
> smoothness=intermediate wheelchair=yes` with a connection to a highway
> or parking area not strictly a hiking trail, and there are some trails
> near me- even in Wild Forest areas- that are constructed in such a way
> to offer wildland access to persons with disabilities. I'd be happy
> considering those trails on an equal footing with urban paths.
>
> A hiking trail can be an easy trail through the lowlands. (Those are
> rare near me, because the lowlands are mostly either settled and
> subdivided, or else sucking swamp, so the mountains are what is left
> for hiking trails to go.) I already mentioned that sac_scale discounts
> hazards other than mountains (and focused on water, but Graeme can
> surely fill in a number of deadlies that are specific to his
> continent).
>
> A lot of it comes down to, "would you route mobility-impaired people
> or folks with small children in tow down this?"  A wrong decision for
> some ambiguous corner case will be mostly harmless. Not having the
> information for a dangerous trail might be deadly.
>

Yeah right now you can use sac_scale=hiking, but I agree we are lacking a
tag to say this is not considered hiking.


>
> > I think it's too hard to have a reliable criteria for this which can be
> objectively surveyed, it's much easier to tag each attribute individually
> on their own independent scale.
>
> The _reductio ad absurdum_: by the same token, because there is
> controversy in many locales over which highways should be
> `highway=trunk` and which should be `highway=primary`, or which should
> be `highway=service` and which should be `highway=track`, all highways
> should be tagged just `highway=road` and the relevant attributes
> (surface, smoothness, speed limit, number of lanes, ...) should be
> mapped instead. Few if any of us think that would be appropriate. Why
> can cars get a hierarchy of ways, while hikers, equestrians and
> cyclists cannot?
>

If you can come up with a proposal I'd love to see it, of course I want to
see it happen to, but I just can't see what the hierarchy should be. For
roads the hierarchy is based on importance of the road in the road network
(eg is it a major connection between cities or just a road used to access a
drive through car wash). Things like surface, smoothness etc don't affect
the road hierarchy. So how would you decide a hierarchy for hiking trails?
How popular the track is? How well built the track is? How technical is the
track? How physically difficult is the track? How well signposted is the
track? How remote is the track?
___
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 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 
> trail down a ravine rather than on the longer, yet safer sidewalks down along 
> the roads or paths through a local park because there is no way to say “THIS 
> IS A TRAIL, not a walkway through a playground” in OSM.

We do have that: `sac_scale=hiking`; as I understand it, few trails go
beyond 'hiking', so that's at least better than nothing. (It still may
suffer from underestimating the trail, leading city folk to the
sketchy rock scrambles when they're expecting a nice level dirt path,
so try to get the scale at least reasonable.)

What we don't have - at all - is the complement: 'THIS IS INDEED A
PATH'.  When we see 'highway=path', we don't know whether it's indeed
a path, or a hiking trail where the mapper didn't assign an
`sac_scale`.  We need a way to assert 'THIS IS A PATH' that doesn't
depend on the absence of a trolltag.

I can't stress enough that as long as we have the ambiguity, the only
way to 'fail soft' is to support the assertion 'this is relatively
safe', because we can deduce nothing from the absence of a 'this is
dangerous' assertion.

Incomplete information should 'fail soft'.

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:32 PM Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> Agreed, the biggest question is how do you define that criteria for what is 
> going to be tagged a a hiking trail and not a hiking trail.
>
> Eg. if you have a smooth paved track through the rainforest that the 
> authorities created for grandparents and strollers, is that a hiking trail 
> just because it's in a forest area? What about a stroll through the hills of 
> grasslands that have no forest or mountains, is that marked as a hiking trail?

No, just being in a forest doesn't make something a trail.  I think
that it's pretty safe to assume that 'surface=compacted
smoothness=intermediate wheelchair=yes` with a connection to a highway
or parking area not strictly a hiking trail, and there are some trails
near me- even in Wild Forest areas- that are constructed in such a way
to offer wildland access to persons with disabilities. I'd be happy
considering those trails on an equal footing with urban paths.

A hiking trail can be an easy trail through the lowlands. (Those are
rare near me, because the lowlands are mostly either settled and
subdivided, or else sucking swamp, so the mountains are what is left
for hiking trails to go.) I already mentioned that sac_scale discounts
hazards other than mountains (and focused on water, but Graeme can
surely fill in a number of deadlies that are specific to his
continent).

A lot of it comes down to, "would you route mobility-impaired people
or folks with small children in tow down this?"  A wrong decision for
some ambiguous corner case will be mostly harmless. Not having the
information for a dangerous trail might be deadly.

> I think it's too hard to have a reliable criteria for this which can be 
> objectively surveyed, it's much easier to tag each attribute individually on 
> their own independent scale.

The _reductio ad absurdum_: by the same token, because there is
controversy in many locales over which highways should be
`highway=trunk` and which should be `highway=primary`, or which should
be `highway=service` and which should be `highway=track`, all highways
should be tagged just `highway=road` and the relevant attributes
(surface, smoothness, speed limit, number of lanes, ...) should be
mapped instead. Few if any of us think that would be appropriate. Why
can cars get a hierarchy of ways, while hikers, equestrians and
cyclists cannot?

Since the possible set of attributes is open-ended, the result of not
having some sort of categorization is a nightmare for data consumers,
trying to determine how to render a road, or whether the road is
routable in the current circumstances, or where there are 'trails for
hiking near here'. No sensible symbology can map all the possible
attributes, and no sensible router can take all of them into account.
At some point, _someone_ has to make the call of what is considered
suitable, and punting that decision all the way to the end user is
what leads to the sort of accidents that Graeme, John and I have been
discussing.

Even an 'objective' attribute often turns into a controversial
position; consider 'car=no' versus 'car=private'. A lot of mappers
think that 'no' should be reserved for ways on which it's physically
impossible to drive a car: What about the corner case of ways that
could accept only a car with high ground clearance, or a way that a
skilled stunt driver could manage but most drivers could not?  So now
we need to come up with separate tagging indicating the legal status,
versus the physical status, and a detailed physical model of how the
way affects the 

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 quicksand, likelihood of
> encroaching vegetation, or beaver activity. All of these present
> objective hazards (falls, drowning, hypothermia) that come into
> assessing a trail's level of difficulty and danger.
>
> At the higher grades, there is a lot of assessment of snow and ice
> conditions.  Is there a way to tag seasonally-varying conditions?



> The Australians are similarly confused - even the so-called Australian
> Alps are subalpine.
>

Thanks for your very detailed breakdown, Kevin!

Totally agree that our "mountains" wouldn't even get a second glance in
most areas of the world, & even in them, in winter, there is only a very
limited amount of cross-country skiing or walking happening.

You mentioned that every year, you have people die of exposure.

We have exactly the same problem here but the cause is the exact opposite -
heat!

Every year, we have people die while walking / hiking due to being
unprepared for the conditions, then suffering heat exhaustion & eventually
dieing of thirst :-(

How do we map a trail tag to include

" Users require previous experience in the outdoors and a high level of
specialised skills such as navigation skills. Users will generally require
a map and navigation equipment to complete the track. Users need to be
self-reliant, particularly in regard to emergency first aid and possible
weather hazards."

or

 "Take enough water, food, equipment & first aid supplies

   - At least 2L of water per person
   - Waterproof and windproof clothing to keep you warm
   - Plenty of food and snacks
   - Hat and sunscreen
   - Topographic map and compass (know how to use them) plus download the NSW
   National Parks app .
   - Matches and a torch
   - First aid kit
   - Insect repellent
   - Your mobile phone or a satellite phone. Download the Emergency+
    app before you go.
   - A Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) to use as a last resort"

No, they're not really an OSM problem, but we should have some way of
marking that track / trail as potentially hazardous.

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

[Andrew Harvey]

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 dictionary definitions of trail, in the sense of path, could
> we come up with some verifiable criteria for when such a subtag should be
> used? What I'm looking for is to differentiate forest and mountain paths
> from urban paths or groomed, smooth paths. When people have been clearing
> forest to make a path more visible and passable, that's still a beaten path
> to me.
>
> And yes, path=trail would probably need to be used for trails tagged as
> footway too, although I personally see footway as an urban path and always
> use path for a trail.
>
> Whatever subtag , we're still stuck with all those cases when highway=path
> is not combined with any other tag (whether it should be path=trail or
> anything else). How would we treat those? Obviously we can't take it for
> granted that those cases should have path=trail.
>
>
>1. Can we agree on whether or not we need a subtag like path=trail?
>Since it's probably too late for highway=trail, which by all means would
>have been the best option.
>2. If we introduce path=trail, what would be the criteria for when it
>should be used?
>3. What about all the cases of highway=path that don't have and will
>not have path=trail? Old or new. Some probably should (like when
>surface=ground), others should never have path=trail. It will still make it
>difficult to render those cases and for data consumers to choose a fallback
>value for those cases.
>4. What about edge cases? It may have been a beaten path that has been
>groomed with better surface material to make it more accessible for
>example. Would it still be considered for path=trail?
>
>
Agreed, the biggest question is how do you define that criteria for what is
going to be tagged a a hiking trail and not a hiking trail.

Eg. if you have a smooth paved track through the rainforest that the
authorities created for grandparents and strollers, is that a hiking trail
just because it's in a forest area? What about a stroll through the hills
of grasslands that have no forest or mountains, is that marked as a hiking
trail?

I think it's too hard to have a reliable criteria for this which can be
objectively surveyed, it's much easier to tag each attribute individually
on their own independent scale.

Anything should work with both highway=footway and highway=path, since one
at the core of the definition on the wiki highway=footway is for primary
walking (which most designated hiking trails are), and highway=path is for
mixed use or unspecified usage paths (which some hiking trails are).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[John Willis via Tagging]

> "Path (is) 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 
pedestrians, or part of regular man-made infrastructure: a sidewalk, a walkway, 
or other man-made route between urban and suburban features  A sidewalk, a path 
in a park, or other another route that is supplementary to the road 
infrastructure/man-made amenity. 

A trail is tied to a natural landuse: a rural or wilderness route through 
terrain that is not supplementary of the existing road network. It is a route 
that is meant for pedestrians to cross wilderness or geologic features on 
trails that may have walking hazards or other impediments to walking (grade, 
surface, Maintenance, smoothness). What those are or their severity can be left 
to other tags. Why they cross those features may be out of necessity - the only 
way to reach a remote shrine or hilltop; recreation - a walking route around a 
mountain or swamp to see nature; or transportation, connecting remote outposts. 
They may be remote and barely maintained or immensely busy, but the 
surface+Area it traverses denotes weather it is a path or a trail, extremely 
similar to “track or esidential/service” 

A person may have a gravel driveway, but because it is a urban/suburban/rural 
driveway, we tag it as highway surface. 

A gravel track up the side of a mountain may be easy enough to drive a minivan 
on, but it is a fire break road and tagged as highway=track and 
tracktype=grade2.

The road itself may be identical. The usage and location set the purpose. 

Under track is the bottom catch-all for 2wheeled vehicles - rutted fire roads 
passable only by tracked vehicles. 

Trail has rocky, steep, difficult - almost impassable - routes used by 
mountaineers. 

Yet both track and trail contain a vast amount of easily passable ways - it’s 
just they are farming tracks or routes through a nature preserve. 

Treating trail as we do track is easy and essential for path-trail separation. 

Occasionally, trails exist in an urban environment which are informal or 
purposefully designed to be trails, and if their surface and usage fits, then 
tag it at a trail. 


> Creating a new path=trail tag will not do any good, as it will be practically 
> impossible to re-tag all the existing "highwa=path"
> 
It is possible for all major hiking routes to be properly tagged in a year 
globally. 

The point is to staunch the bleeding! People are mapping new trails everyday - 
lets stop mismapping them ASAP! 

People who love trails and use OSM for trails will chew on it. 

I work on mapping cycleways in my area where few mappers do - it is possible 
for a single mapper to make a big difference. Trail mappers can handle existing 
trails in a large city pretty easily. A place like Yosemite or John Muir 
wilderness would take a while, but Mt Fuji or another “single mountain” (Cowles 
Mtn in San Diego, Golden Gate Park, point Rayes) can be done in an an hour or 
two in a single sitting by one mapper.

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 trail down 
a ravine rather than on the longer, yet safer sidewalks down along the roads or 
paths through a local park because there is no way to say “THIS IS A TRAIL, not 
a walkway through a playground” in OSM. 

JAVBW. 

___
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

[Paul Allen]

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 such.
>

Do you feel there is a need to tag potrebie?  That might make some people
mad.

Anyway, it was more of a running gag than a hiking joke.

-- 
Paul
___
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 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 that. The non-foot-cycle "paths" can be handled by surface, smootness, 
> and sac-scale tags.

The point is that you can't draw any inference from the absence of a
tag. We can't assume that because a mapper didn't tag sac_scale, that
a path is passable to small children or disabled people. We might have
to deal with the 'unknown' state for quite a while (and a router can
try to guess from some combination of the other tags), but eventually
we need to enable mappers to make the positive assertion that a path
_is_ accessible to people who aren't skilled hikers - at least to the
extent that urban footways usually are.

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 such.

-- 
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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 considering.
>
> That's not correct. If you have a look at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale
> you'll notice that only from sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking the
> scale starts to have the requirement "basic alpine expericence" and
> "good hiking shoes".
>
> So: Only Grade 1 and 2 are clear sac_scale=hiking. Grade 4 would map
> to sac_scale=mountain_hiking and Grade 5 to 
> sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking.
> Grade 3 is a bit inbetween but I'd probably put it under
> sac_scale=mountain_hiking to be on the safe side.
>
> 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 the highway=path classification (even under the
> catch-all definition of OSM).

The first problem with the sac_scale is that it's not got anything at
the low end. For trails in urban and suburban areas, we want to know,
for instance, whether the trail might be accessible to the disabled or
to small children. That's actually the single biggest problem here.
Without delving into a ton of auxiliary information, there's no
difference between an urban footway and a wilderness trail!  For that
reason, 'surface' and 'smoothness' and 'incline' and 'sac_scale' are
all trolltags: they destroy fundamental expectations (at least to
urbanites) of what a 'path' is. (Those false expectations are
responsible for many outdoor accidents in my part of the world - I'm
close enough to several large cities that we get many unprepared
tourists.)

I agree that highway=path and highway=footway are too entrenched, so
we're going to be stuck with trolltags.  In that case, we need fairly
clear and repeatable guidelines for both mappers and data consumers -
right now, trying to figure out, 'do I have an urban footpath or a
wilderness trail' is a complex endeavour, and mappers aren't really in
a position to help. While you can add 'sac_scale' to flag that a path
is unsuitable to small children, disabled people, or less-skilled
hikers, how do we flag that a path _is_ suitable? (The absence of a
tag cannot be the answer, because the absence of a tag conveys at
best, "I don't know." It's best never to draw any conclusion at all
from the absence of a tag.)

Those who aren't hiking geeks may stop reading here, the rest gets
more technical:

One-line summary: I clearly don't understand sac_scale, but my
discussions with the OSMers have done little to clarify it in my mind.

I just reread the `sac_scale` page yet again . I'm afraid that I don't
find it quite as helpful as you do, even in the domain for which it's
intended. It appears to have been awkwardly machine-translated to
English from another language. For example, 'acclivity' and 'facile'
are both Latinate words that a native speaker would use only when
writing in an affected academic style. My university-educated (but
geologically-ignorant) wife didn't even know the word 'acclivity'
without looking it up!

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 quicksand, likelihood of
encroaching vegetation, or beaver activity. All of these present
objective hazards (falls, drowning, hypothermia) that come into
assessing a trail's level of difficulty and danger.

The phrase 'single plainly climbing up to second grade' comes across
as word salad. I have no idea what the word, "single" refers to. What
is "plainly" climbing? I presume that "second grade" is on someone's
scale of rock- or ice-climbing difficulty, but have no idea what scale
to look at to translate to the YDS that's pretty universal in the US.
If it's the UIAA scale, then I can sort of make sense of it: grade II
is roughly equivalent to 5.3 on the Yosemite scale. A hiking trail at
the technical end of things might have a 5.3 move somewhere, if it's
not exposed. If I'm doing anything beyond class 4 (YDS) in an exposed
position, I want a belay and a helmet, and that's no longer hiking!
[Afterthought - I finally found the original German. 'einzelne
einfache Kletterstellen'. Then the following grade (Schwieriges
Alpinwandern) says 'Kletterstellen bis II UIAA', so I guessed right on
UIAA. I suppose that if you're unaware of the context, 'einzeine'
could be single and 'einfache' could be 'plainly', but the translation
of the whole phrase on the Wiki is nonsense. Any objections if I edit
it to something like: "Isolated easy climbing pitches, up to class 2
on the UIAA scale?" If I were to do that, I'd try to clean up the
translation throughout.]

The emphasis on 

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 anyway.

Creating a new path=trail tag will not do any good, as it will be
practically impossible to re-tag all the existing "highwa=path" ways that
fall into the new category. Which means the only effect it will have that
routers and renderers need to ad this as an additional possible tagging to
their already complicated evaluation

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 that. The non-foot-cycle "paths" can be handled by surface, smootness,
and sac-scale tags.





On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 16:33, 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 dictionary definitions of trail, in the sense of path, could
> we come up with some verifiable criteria for when such a subtag should be
> used? What I'm looking for is to differentiate forest and mountain paths
> from urban paths or groomed, smooth paths. When people have been clearing
> forest to make a path more visible and passable, that's still a beaten path
> to me.
>
> And yes, path=trail would probably need to be used for trails tagged as
> footway too, although I personally see footway as an urban path and always
> use path for a trail.
>
> Whatever subtag , we're still stuck with all those cases when highway=path
> is not combined with any other tag (whether it should be path=trail or
> anything else). How would we treat those? Obviously we can't take it for
> granted that those cases should have path=trail.
>
>
>1. Can we agree on whether or not we need a subtag like path=trail?
>Since it's probably too late for highway=trail, which by all means would
>have been the best option.
>2. If we introduce path=trail, what would be the criteria for when it
>should be used?
>3. What about all the cases of highway=path that don't have and will
>not have path=trail? Old or new. Some probably should (like when
>surface=ground), others should never have path=trail. It will still make it
>difficult to render those cases and for data consumers to choose a fallback
>value for those cases.
>4. What about edge cases? It may have been a beaten path that has been
>groomed with better surface material to make it more accessible for
>example. Would it still be considered for path=trail?
>
>
> /Daniel
>
> Den sön 24 maj 2020 kl 16:05 skrev John Willis via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>> 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 what we are doing now with trails.
>>
>> Would you want to depend on the tracktype=* tag for denoting that it is,
>> in fact, a track? At least track type has “track” in the key name.
>> If someone didn’t set it, it would map like the parking lots and
>> alleyways in cities. Madness.
>>
>> Sac_scale is an arcane attribute for hiking nerds - it is great to have,
>> but shouldn’t be the tag that differentiates a hiking trail from a sidewalk
>> in OSM. That should have been a separate tag from day one, but we are now
>> stuck with the monstrosity that is path=.
>>
>> At least subkey it.
>>
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>> On May 24, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
>>> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
>>> similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other
>>> “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t
>>> expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>>>
>>
>> Right now you can use
>> sac_scale=hiking,mountain_hiking,demanding_mountain_hiking to indicate if a
>> path is a hiking trail. Though you can't really currently say something is
>> not a hiking trail.
>>
>> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:01, Kevin Kenny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
>>> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
>>> similar to sidewalk, so we can 

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

[Daniel Westergren]

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 with some verifiable criteria for when such a subtag should be
used? What I'm looking for is to differentiate forest and mountain paths
from urban paths or groomed, smooth paths. When people have been clearing
forest to make a path more visible and passable, that's still a beaten path
to me.

And yes, path=trail would probably need to be used for trails tagged as
footway too, although I personally see footway as an urban path and always
use path for a trail.

Whatever subtag , we're still stuck with all those cases when highway=path
is not combined with any other tag (whether it should be path=trail or
anything else). How would we treat those? Obviously we can't take it for
granted that those cases should have path=trail.


   1. Can we agree on whether or not we need a subtag like path=trail?
   Since it's probably too late for highway=trail, which by all means would
   have been the best option.
   2. If we introduce path=trail, what would be the criteria for when it
   should be used?
   3. What about all the cases of highway=path that don't have and will not
   have path=trail? Old or new. Some probably should (like when
   surface=ground), others should never have path=trail. It will still make it
   difficult to render those cases and for data consumers to choose a fallback
   value for those cases.
   4. What about edge cases? It may have been a beaten path that has been
   groomed with better surface material to make it more accessible for
   example. Would it still be considered for path=trail?


/Daniel

Den sön 24 maj 2020 kl 16:05 skrev John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> 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 what we are doing now with trails.
>
> Would you want to depend on the tracktype=* tag for denoting that it is,
> in fact, a track? At least track type has “track” in the key name.
> If someone didn’t set it, it would map like the parking lots and alleyways
> in cities. Madness.
>
> Sac_scale is an arcane attribute for hiking nerds - it is great to have,
> but shouldn’t be the tag that differentiates a hiking trail from a sidewalk
> in OSM. That should have been a separate tag from day one, but we are now
> stuck with the monstrosity that is path=.
>
> At least subkey it.
>
>
> Javbw
>
> On May 24, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
>> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
>> similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other
>> “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t
>> expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>>
>
> Right now you can use
> sac_scale=hiking,mountain_hiking,demanding_mountain_hiking to indicate if a
> path is a hiking trail. Though you can't really currently say something is
> not a hiking trail.
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:01, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
>> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
>> similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other
>> “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t
>> expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>> >
>> > Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up
>> runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.
>>
>> Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
>> out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
>> problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
>> https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
>> scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
>> only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
>> mean death.
>>
>
>  https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 I would tag
> as sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, my rule of thumb is anything where
> the average person would need to use their hands to get over an obstacle
> is demanding_mountain_hiking. This is what the wiki says too "exposed sites
> may be secured with ropes or chains, possible need to use hands for
> balance".
>
> Anything that 

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

[John Willis via Tagging]

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 what we are doing now with trails. 

Would you want to depend on the tracktype=* tag for denoting that it is, in 
fact, a track? At least track type has “track” in the key name.
If someone didn’t set it, it would map like the parking lots and alleyways in 
cities. Madness. 

Sac_scale is an arcane attribute for hiking nerds - it is great to have, but 
shouldn’t be the tag that differentiates a hiking trail from a sidewalk in OSM. 
That should have been a separate tag from day one, but we are now stuck with 
the monstrosity that is path=.

At least subkey it. 


Javbw

> On May 24, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched 
>> - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to 
>> sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, 
>> and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a 
>> sidewalk or playground way. 
> 
> Right now you can use 
> sac_scale=hiking,mountain_hiking,demanding_mountain_hiking to indicate if a 
> path is a hiking trail. Though you can't really currently say something is 
> not a hiking trail. 
> 
>> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:01, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely 
>> > entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, 
>> > similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other 
>> > “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t 
>> > expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>> >
>> > Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up 
>> > runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.
>> 
>> Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
>> out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
>> problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
>> https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
>> scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
>> only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
>> mean death.
> 
>  https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 I would tag as 
> sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, my rule of thumb is anything where the 
> average person would need to use their hands to get over an obstacle is 
> demanding_mountain_hiking. This is what the wiki says too "exposed sites may 
> be secured with ropes or chains, possible need to use hands for balance".
> 
> Anything that doesn't need hands, but has a fall hazard/is exposed would be 
> sac_scale=mountain_hiking (assuming it's not alpine).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Sarah Hoffmann]

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 families with young children
> > Grade 3 is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
> > Grade 4 is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
> > Grade 5 is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers
> 
> 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 considering.

That's not correct. If you have a look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale
you'll notice that only from sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking the
scale starts to have the requirement "basic alpine expericence" and
"good hiking shoes".

So: Only Grade 1 and 2 are clear sac_scale=hiking. Grade 4 would map
to sac_scale=mountain_hiking and Grade 5 to sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking.
Grade 3 is a bit inbetween but I'd probably put it under
sac_scale=mountain_hiking to be on the safe side.

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 the highway=path classification (even under the
catch-all definition of OSM).

Sarah

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

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

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 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 terms of how technical and demanding it is (and thus
> who can use it and how it will affect walking/hiking/running pace).
>
> I'd like to elaborate on the suggestion *path=trail*, which I think is
> super!!
>
> According to the Cambridge dictionary, a trail is "*a path through a
> countryside, mountain, or forest area, often made or used for a particular
> purpose:*
> *- a forest/mountain trail*
> *- a walking/snowshoeing/cross-country skiing trail*"
>
> Other dictionaries use "*beaten path*", "*a track made by passage
> especially through a wilderness*" or similar.
>
> To me, the main difference is between a *beaten path vs a path that has
> been purposely groomed*.
>
> Could path=trail be used for this distinction? Unlike path=mtb, it would
> not be for trails created for a specific purpose, but any beaten path,
> usually in a forest or mountaineous region.
>

There are a few hiking tracks around mapped as highway=footway, at first I
was "that's wrong", but reading the wiki I couldn't find any fault since
they are designated walking paths.

What are you ultimately trying to distinguish from highway=path?

A very high percentage of the trails near me are all "groomed", they do
this to prevent erosion and track degradation, so while that could be an
indicator for how built up a track is it's not at all an indicator of a
hiking trail.

"Tracktype is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road
is," https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype is basically how
"groomed" a track/road is, are you looking for something similar for paths?


>  Regarding *trail difficulty*, I agree that sac_scale is more for
> different levels of alpinism (and not really relevant for non-mountain
> trails) and that other measures are needed to separate everything that on
> the SAC scale would simply be hiking.
>

> One challenge here is about verifiability. Another is about basing such a
> tag on a scale that is only used in a small part of the world. For people
> in the Alps it may be easy to use the SAC scale, because they walk on
> trails where it's used IRL. Similar with the other suggested scales (what's
> "bush" for someone outside of Australia?).
>

"bush" in Australia is what you'd probably call "woods" or "forest", so
bushwalking (AU) = hiking = tarmping (NZ) = backpacking, etc.
___
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]

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 and how it will affect walking/hiking/running pace).

I'd like to elaborate on the suggestion *path=trail*, which I think is
super!!

According to the Cambridge dictionary, a trail is "*a path through a
countryside, mountain, or forest area, often made or used for a particular
purpose:*
*- a forest/mountain trail*
*- a walking/snowshoeing/cross-country skiing trail*"

Other dictionaries use "*beaten path*", "*a track made by passage
especially through a wilderness*" or similar.

To me, the main difference is between a *beaten path vs a path that has
been purposely groomed*.

Could path=trail be used for this distinction? Unlike path=mtb, it would
not be for trails created for a specific purpose, but any beaten path,
usually in a forest or mountaineous region.


Regarding *trail difficulty*, I agree that sac_scale is more for different
levels of alpinism (and not really relevant for non-mountain trails) and
that other measures are needed to separate everything that on the SAC scale
would simply be hiking.

One challenge here is about verifiability. Another is about basing such a
tag on a scale that is only used in a small part of the world. For people
in the Alps it may be easy to use the SAC scale, because they walk on
trails where it's used IRL. Similar with the other suggested scales (what's
"bush" for someone outside of Australia?).

I started the other tread about trail technicality for this particular
reason. But maybe we can separate the discussions and keep this one about
how to differentiate trail from other highway=path?

/Daniel

Den sön 24 maj 2020 04:00Kevin Kenny  skrev:

> 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 families with young children
> > Grade 3 is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
> > Grade 4 is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
> > Grade 5 is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers
>
> 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 considering.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tod Fitch]

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Tod

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

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



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