On 6/12/2016 3:43 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
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.
+1
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.
And that would make more problems .. the same as the conflict between
highway=path and highway=footway
-1
Making more tags to 'solve' a rendering issue may only result in the
renders resolving the new tag teh same as the previous tag, despite the
best efforts of tag definitions.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
