Nit picking..

name:xy is not the local name but the name in some language, usually not the 
local language

loc_name is for the local name.

alt_name for an alternate name etc etc...

Suggested text forosmc:symbol <>=* "represents the symbol used on the route."? state=* should be dropped! There are already life cycle tags that can be used for planning, construction etc. Alternate ... As in an alternate path, this could be a role in the route? Thoughts... I think colour <>=* could be the major colour of the symbol used on the route?

Not enchanted witheducational <>=* as that key could be used for other things. But I don't have a suggestion for it. Some 25 uses so far, mostly in Germany.

Probably needs a statement that ways only are to be entered, excludes things 
like information boards, shelters, toilets etc etc.

Humm... looks like I have a 'hiking' route that is more of a 'foot' route.. 
Thanks for making the page, good start.

On 14/08/19 19:54, s8evq wrote:
I have gone ahead, and made a temporary Wiki page (not linked from anywhere)

I copy here the text I added on the page as well:

I have not added or removed any content. The aim of this table is to only 
harmonize the four different tagging scheme tables. The only three things I 
have altered so far are:

1) Remove the wording "(optional)" in front of the explanation of some keys. 
What's the function of adding (optional) in front of tags that are in the Useful section 
of the table? Isn't every tag that is not in Reqteh local nameuired optional by default?
2) Sort alphabetical in the Useful section
3) Use tag and tagvalue templates where possible

To do
1) Explanation route=hiking / route=foot is merely a copy paste at the moment. 
Should be cleaned out and clarified
2) Explanation network=* is merely a copy paste of the different explanations. 
Duplicates should be removed and text clarified.
3) Remove the mentioning of public transport routes in the explanation of 

To be decided:
How to integrate this table in hiking, Walking Routes, tag:route=hiking, 
1) Link from each of the four pages to this as a separate page?
2) Pick one of the four pages, put the table there, and link from it in the 
three other pages?
3) Use transclusion

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 22:08:12 +0200, Peter Elderson <> wrote:

Foot is always right, at some point it may turn into hiking, also dependent
on what you carry, where it happens, and how you feel about it. Personal
preference/country/region largely determine how you call it. For all
practical purposes, highway=foot and highway=hiking are the same. If a
renderer or datauser wants to be more specific, better to consider specific
attributes of the relation(s) and the ways it uses, to determine how to
render/categorize/filter the routes.

Fr gr Peter Elderson

Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 21:38 schreef s8evq <>:

True, that's something that could be added to the tagging scheme. For
example "route=foot|hiking" explaining the difference in de explanation

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:07:56 -0400, Kevin Kenny <>

I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!

But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin <> wrote:
On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.


When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and
discuss the tagging scheme.
Vr gr Peter Elderson

Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq <>:
Hello everyone,

On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (
I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come
here, before proceeding.

Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how
walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a
link to it in the others?
Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme
tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the
explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those
interested, here are my edits:
So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.

My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki
pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have
broader support before going further.

Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme.
But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to