Hi, there is no need for path=hiking or path=footpad (unless this a road, where you can run into highwayman, but I probably miss something). The existing tags cover much more than I need. Custom, undocumented tags just won't be rendered, not even on custom renderings.
Zsolt Herrbert74 On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Dave F. <[email protected]> wrote: > > Describe the physical condition of a way, with tags such as 'surface' & > let > > the users decide if it's their idea of hikable. > > Let me say immediately that the ideology of "describe the physical > characteristics, and let people make up their own mind" is deeply > flawed at both ends. It would be extremely time consuming to collect > the level of data to make that work - measuring widths, roughness etc > at many points along a track. And presenting all that fine-grained > data to end users is not useful either: it needs to be distilled into > something that can be processed quickly by someone reading a map. I've > got nothing against people using this approach, but I find it > extremely impractical and inefficient for my purposes. > > Now, back to the discussion. I've probably tried to compress too many > distinctions in here. There is: > a) rough vs smooth (by "rough" I actually meant the opposite of > "careful", not the opposite of "smooth") > b) wide vs narrow > c) constructed vs natural > d) official vs unofficial > e) dirt vs surfaced > > Benefits of tagging correctly would include: > 1) routing for practical walkers (getting from A to B, avoiding muddy > paths perhaps) > 2) routing for recreational walkers (comfortable with a wider range of > tracks) > 3) routing for practical cyclists (getting from A to B) > 4) routing for adventure/mtb cyclists (having fun) > 5) showing on appropriate maps (unofficial footpads shouldn't show up > on official town or park maps, even if useful) > > So, what kind of scheme would achieve the above, as efficiently as > possible? I agree with Sam that it's not a trivial problem. One > tentative idea: > > highway=footway: 1, 5 and maybe 3 > highway=path, path=footpad: 2 and maybe 4 > > But how to tag a mountain bike path that pedestrians are forbidden > from using? path=footpad, foot=no seems weird. > > Alternatives would be to focus on the official/unofficial distinction, > the surface, the width etc. But these seem a bit indirect. Thoughts? > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
