On 1/12/20 11:06 am, Casper Van Battum wrote:
I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the
sense that the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on
the trails. I'm guessing it's either protected land or private
property these trails are on. Since the organization mentioned they
didn't want to put up "no access" signs, it would be appropriate to
map the paths as such.
However I'm with you on that this brings us no closer to a general
solution for tagging animal paths, that applies even beyond this
specific situation.
The big question is: what distinguishes an animal path from a human
path? Animals use human paths, and in numerous cases humans use animal
paths. It would be hard to define it.
Animals come in different sizes.
A pad made by wild horses have sufficient height and width that most
hikers could use them, this they can get muddy or steep in certain places.
A pad made by wombats can go under plants that would have humans
crawling on their stomachs not just on their hands and knees.
We generally follow the guidelines to tag highways according to their
usage (see tracks vs roads for example). Currently highway=path is
defined as "generic path, multi-usage or unspecified usage" and animal
paths do already fit that description. We could define animal paths as
"generic path, used mainly by animals" but I suppose it should be a
specific kind of path (something along the lines of
highway=path+animal=yes) rather than a new type of highway. But again,
is this enough of a distinction to merit its own tagging scheme?
I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess!
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging
that... terrible.
Cheers, Casper
On 1 Dec 2020, at 00:47, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com
<mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert
<lrich...@posteo.net <mailto:lrich...@posteo.net>>:
I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many
trails in my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom
used by people - but it is allowed for people to walk on these
and they are sometimes significant shortcuts so allowing
routing over them in some cases would be good.
+1
After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I
believe that they mostly do not apply to the situation here.
People were mainly concerned about wildlife protection, and
Belgian cows are not falling under my idea of "wildlife".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
