On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 00:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: One hiking trail I know of the locals usually go bare foot, not only > because of poverty but also terrain. > So the foot ware would be a guide, not a rule. > Are all foot routes paved? I would think so. >
Around my town there are several footpaths that are paved. But they're not walking routes, just short cuts between locations. Pretty much indistinguishable from a sidewalk apart from not being at the side of a road. Around the outskirts of my town there are also several footpaths which, at least in part, go across fields. Again, not walking routes, just short cuts. They could probably be incorporated into walking routes but, as far as I know, nobody has done so. Then there are footpaths which are part of walking routes. Usually unpaved, cutting across fields or through woods. And then there are hiking routes where the surface is uneven, or stony, or boggy, or you have to ford through a stream. Hiking route may have sections that are 'paved', mainly to prevent damage > to the environment. > True. Some of the walking and hiking routes I know of have a section, or sections, along a road. But you choose footwear for the worst conditions you'll encounter on the route, not the best. Going by the footwear was only a rule of thumb, but it seems like a useful one. There are going to be exceptions, but if you need hiking boots, and even fit people need a walking stick to keep their balance, it's better to call it a hiking route than a walking route. Similarly, if you could do it wearing slippers without any discomfort or getting wet feet, it's probably a walking route. It seems like useful guidance to mappers rather than not defining any distinction at all. But maybe somebody can come up with something better. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
