One of the great things about OSM, is that it shows the informal social trails, cut through routes and fence gaps. One of the bad things about OSM, is that it shows the informal social trails, cut through routes and fence gaps.
I've been mapping these highway=path, informal=yes. I feel that *access=no* is *inappropriate* in most cases, as these trails are often fully legal to travel on and in many cases tolerated by land managers (note 1). However: I'm disturbed by the knowledge that when I map highway=path, informal=yes the majority of the rendering tools will show it as a peer to a highway=path, official=yes. I often try adding width=1 ft or some other indication of a lesser status: but that usually misses the point. The trails are different *because* they are not created or maintained by the land manager, not because of any true physical characteristic. Thus, there's a rendering fix for this issue. But quite frankly a totally new highway tag would be a very direct route to affecting the rendering nearly everywhere. -Bryce Note 1: Many natural reserves allow cross country or off trail travel. In some cases land managers would much rather you take the established social trail to a given destination, rather than create new ones. Example: a social trail leading to a popular viewpoint rock. Here having the route in OSM can limit the social trail damage. One exception is in certain desert landscapes, where land managers ask groups and persons to spread out the foot traffic impact. Example: some cryptobiotic soil areas.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
