On 01/03/2015, fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I just say, that out of the 25,000 objects tagged with route=foot over > 21,000 have been tagged either network=lwn or network=rwn and would be > better tagged route=hiking as that is the route type for hiking routes. > > In general, I do not like route=foot but I sustain the description on > the German wiki page and the little passage at the beginning of the > second table on the English wiki page of route=hiking.
I think that's where the language nuance comes in. To me, "hiking" is a special variant of "walking". Something linked to sport, or love of the outdoors. In contrast, route=foot looks like it caters to more "utilitarian" reasons, where walking is the mean but not the goal. The most obvious example being tourist trails to see the attractions of a city. Tourists would rather do as little walking as possible to see the different POIs. And it's perfectly reasonable for those routes to have a network=*. In fact, I'd find any route relation with neither network=* nor operator=* a bit suspicious. To sum it up: I feel there's a usefull distinction between route=foot and route=hiking, they don't have to be merged. However, that distinction could (as always) do with better documentation. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
