On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 17:25, Daniel Westergren <wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the > current status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more > useful for forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are > usually more up-to-date, to be honest). But the default rendering doesn't > differentiate between a forest or mountain path and a paved, combined foot- > and cycleway in an urban environment. > There are plenty of apps/maps out there which do differentiate this, so that's not a tagging issue. > Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering > is discussed elsewhere. But has there been any fruitful discussing on this > topic that will help users to tag these clearly extremely different kinds > of "paths" in a way that make them more useful for data consumers, as well > as easier to differentiate for renderers? > > Sure, tags like surface, width, trail_visibility can be used. But in most > cases, highway=path is used with no additional tag. The JOSM presets for > foot- and cycleways use foot|bicycle=designated, but that doesn't > necessarily tell anything about the surface or size of the path, or even > its importance in terms of usage by pedestrians, hikers and cyclists. > Those are very useful tags, plus smoothness and sac_scale. You can also use foot=designated to indicated its signposted for walking or foot=yes to indicate you are allowed to walk but not signed for walkers. There are tags for ladders, rungs, ropes which are useful so less able people can be informed if a trail features these obstacles. The lifecycle prefix is good for tagging abandoned paths that have significant regrowth and authorities have closed off and trying to regenerate. You're right a highway=path without any other tags covers a wide range of possibilities, that's why it's great if you can add other tags. > When highway=path was introduced, forest trails were not widely mapped and > not the main consideration when introducing the tag as a way to deal with > cases when footway or cycleway could not be used. > The highway value describes what the path was built for, the other tags mentioned tell you a lot more about the suitability of it. > I realize this topic has been discussed extensively over the years. But > now more than ever OSM is becoming increasingly important for hikers, trail > runners and MTB cyclists for whom a forest or mountain path is something > completely different to an urban foot- or cycleway. > If you have any material suggestions, I'd be very keen to hear. Disclaimer: I build a website and map for hiking using OSM ( beyondtracks.com/map) data and yes I do take into account sac_scale (path is red when it's technical), trail visibility (sparser dot when the trail is less visible), ladders, ropes and rungs.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
