As it is the minimum width that will limit passage, I would prefer to
see the minimum with tagged not the average width.
On 23/5/20 3:23 am, Daniel Westergren wrote:
In the short term, it's okay to tag an estimated, average width.
If it's 1 to 0.3 meters, use 0.5 - this still shows a difference
from a path which is 1.5 to 4 meters wide (which you might
estimate as 2.5 meters?).
Perhaps it could be added to the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath that width is
for the tread on the ground and that for sections that vary in width,
break them down or estimate an average width? Then it will be more
clear for mappers who are reading about how to use width for
highway=path particularly.
I would also suggest that smoothness is added in the Tagging section
of that page, as it's very helpful when smoothness for a path is
added. For now, it's only in the "Useful combination" section and may
be missed by many. And by the way, for StreetComplete it's now being
discussed to filter for only highway=path|track that either has a
smoothness tag with a value of bad or worse, or surface=ground or
equivalent, when asking for MTB difficulty.
And lastly, what if something is also added for surface, to describe
why it's an important tag to distinguish different kinds of paths from
each other?
/Daniel
-- Joseph Eisenberg
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:22 AM Jake Edmonds via Tagging
<tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
I’m going to throw this in rather randomly but the reason i
don’t tag width and surface is that the footpaths I’m mapping
vary widely. Getting wider and thinner and going from gravel
to dirt to sections with many trees roots. Plus the surface
tag is rather subjective.
Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
On 22 May 2020, at 17:48, Daniel Westergren <wes...@gmail.com
<mailto:wes...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Yeah, I think in terms of tagging we don't get further in
this discussion. But it has been very valuable to me. I've
done a couple of video tutorials about the basics of mapping
trails in OSM and the next one will be about what tags to use
and why.
They are in Swedish, but I'm planning to do English versions
later as well. It's probably been done before, but I guess we
need to use different ways in this widespread community to
reach mappers to get more useful data to work with.
And regarding rendering of surface... Yeah, both an advantage
and disadvantage of OSM is its diversity. What for many
sounds like the only logical way may conflict with the views
of others.
Great work with your rendering btw! I'd love to discuss more
about that outside of this mailing list, as I'm also helping
out with creating a custom rendering for trail running
purposes. OpenStreetMap is indeed very urban-centred still,
which brings me back to my opening lines of this thread, that
OSM hasn't caught up with how lots of people actually are
using it now, like routing and rendering for hiking, cycling
and running, areas where Google Maps etc. are and will
continue to be way behind.
Thanks for valuable input!!
/Daniel
Den fre 22 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Andy Townsend
<ajt1...@gmail.com <mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:
On 22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> And there actually seems to be a pull request finally
solving the
> paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!?
>
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137
>
> If that makes it to the default map it will certainly
help people to
> tag surface, because they will see that it makes sense.
>
>
I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound like it, but this
does read
somewhat as if rendering "surface" on paths is somehow
"obvious" and
"easy", and it's an "oversight" that the OSM Carto folks
haven't been
doing it since basically forever.
It's not - I think that pnorman's comment of
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399#issuecomment-596656115
still applies:
> I'm of the opinion that the only way we can get the
cartographic
"space" to render unpaved surfaces is to drop something
else, like
access restriction rendering.
I think that there's another problem with the standard
style as well -
aside from surface rendering it's hugely biased towards
urban centres.
Looking at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856 you
can't see any paths at all at that zoom level due to the
"Central
European Graveyard problem" - compare with
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13&lat=53.9006&lon=-0.8795
to see what you're missing.
What we need are concrete suggestions of how to get there
from here,
(and Ture Pålsson's mail of
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-May/052747.html
is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for).
Adding a sane surface rendering in addition to everything
else is hard -
I've not managed it across the board at
https://map.atownsend.org.uk
although that is influenced by sac_scale,
trail_visibility and width.
All suggestions gratefully received, but what's needed
some code that
people can play with and see what the effect is on
various areas and
different zoom levels - not just emails to the tagging list*.
Best Regards,
Andy
* yes, I do realise the irony of "yet another email to
the tagging list"!
75 Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
58 Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
49 RFC ele:regional
42 relations & paths
35 Doorzone bicycle lanes
34 Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email
28 Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route
relation roles
27 Reviving the path discussion - the increasing
importance of
trails in OSM
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
