=path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way. Javbw > On May 21, 2020, at 9:47 PM, Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 17:25, Daniel Westergren <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
