Greg Troxel wrote > Ilpo Järvinen < > ilpo.jarvinen@
> > writes: > >> It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds >> of >> "not paved trails through forest". Those which come with man applied >> surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically >> surface=fine_gravel to be more precise), which tends to be rather level >> and easy to walk on and reasonably free from obstacles, and those where >> the conditions are close to unknown (given unfamiliar terrain), might be >> easy/ok but might as well require negotiating tricky parts or even >> backtracking. It's important aspect for (non-computerized) routeplanning >> to know this difference. > > That's fair, but I think it's not really about artificial surface. It's > about whether someone with some familiarity with hiking in general is > going to be able to follow the trail without too much trouble. But I'm > afraid that this is a continuum more than a yes/no sort of thing. To characterize a path/footway extensively we have - beside surface, width, incline, smoothness ... sac_scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale geow -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851874.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
