On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 20:54, Daniel Westergren <wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so I realize there will not really be any other way to distinguish an > urban, paved path from a small forest path, other than by other attributes > than highway=path itself. Path=mtb is nice for paths specifically created > for MTB and nothing else. But I don't see an easily verifiable way of doing > the same for other forest/mountain/meadow paths. > > So we're stuck with other attributes, which mappers should be encouraged > to always use together with highway=path. Like there should never be a > highway=path without a surface tag. Currently only 21% of highway=path has > a surface tag, which contributes to the problem we're discussing. > iD puts surface right up there below the name, the third one in iD is width, and there are presets for sac_scale, trail_visibility and other tags. So I think iD is doing a good job encouraging people to add these tags. As far as I know StreetComplete asks for surface, but if you'd like to see these other tags used more one way is proposing these for StreetComplete. In JOSM there are map paint styles for surface and probably other attributes too. > Then there is width, which is only tagged on 3.5% of highway=path. I was > discussing width of paths in another forum. For a forest path, would you > say width is measured as the actual tread on the ground only? For a runner > and MTB cyclist that would make sense, but for a hiker with a big backpack > a width of 0.3 m may mean they think it's not possible to walk there. > For a paved path, it's usually very clear what to measure for the width, so for forest paths I normally think of width in terms of wide enough for single file or for 2+ abreast.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
