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
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.
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?
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