On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:37 PM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment. Thanks for commenting.
> Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be signposted Agree. It will also show up on official park maps, and possibly in official park GIS data. > and potentially part of a hiking route, Agree, but we don't have many official "hiking routes" in this area. > and an "informal" route won't be signposted an not part of a hiking route, is that your view too? Agree generally. > In that case for the "official" one I'd use foot=designated and make it part of the route=hiking relation, and foot=yes for the informal one. This matches the definitions of =yes and =designated at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access. I wouldn't be opposed to such tagging. However, there are many official trails in this area, and no trail is not officially preferred/designated over other official trails for foot use. > I agree it's best to use a barrier=* tag on the node instead of disconnecting the ways, as that barrier might only block motor_vehicles, not foot access, which the barrier can be tagged as such. The "barrier" in question is probably meant to keep casual hikers from inadvertently taking the Fire Trail. Motor vehicles are not allowed on trails in the park. Nevertheless, I agree with your recommendation.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
