On 5/31/20 3:34 AM, Daniel Westergren wrote:
Ok, I took the liberty of drafting a proposal for a general description of how to map pathways (that is, all highways that are not for motor-vechicles). See https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PtBPFDW3EHrBHl5sy8L-_5a0xNR1w-9YXt-gmfMB_M/edit?usp=sharing

I find the wiki terrible for collaborations like this, as is the wiki discussion. I've therefore used Google Docs, although I realize not all are happy with that. The document is open for anyone with the link to view and comment and depending on what people say we can move this to another platform if needed. And the end result obviously needs to be in the wiki.

I divided the mapping/tagging of pathways into:

 1. function (highway=footway|cycleway|path)
 2. legal access (access=*)
 3. usability (surface, smoothness & width, basically to denote
    usability for people of ordinary ability)
 4. technicality (trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and a
    possible hiking difficulty tag, basically to describe a ways
    difficulty in more detail)
 5. additional tags (that I don't really see the use for, such as
    informal=yes/no and incline)

Comments are welcome. Is this a good start to clarify this mess?

I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag according to function.   A trail/path can have many users/functions, but it's still a dirt path.   Don't forget dirt bikes & ATV's (<50 inchs, 127 cm) in this assessment.  Many trails are open to, and used by, everyone including motor vehicles.    Perhaps this just means that footway & cycleway are non-motorized, and path could be.

The sermon that keeps getting repeated is don't tag for the renderer.   We shouldn't tag for a lousy renderer, but we should tag for the user & sometimes the rules laid down are wrong.

I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the google docs doc.
Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to