Hi all
Back in April I did some tagging tests on foot tracks (highway=path) at
Kanangra that showed that Gaia GPS (possibly amongst other downstream
applications) renders formal tracks - tagged with "operator=*" - more
prominently than those tagged as "informal=yes".
So I'd encourage anyone updating tracks on the map in future to fill in
those fields where appropriate. While it's only a small thing from a
rendering point of view, it will help deter users of those applications
from thinking that all paths are equal.
It's not always easy to determine what is formal vs informal,
particularly in areas where the national park service or local council
does minimal maintenance. There are some guidelines on the Australian
Tagging Page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths
I tend to try and look at the following:
* maintenance - if a track is being maintained by council/NPWS then it
should be tagged
* signposting - if a track is signposted by council/NPWS then it's tacit
approval, and should also be tagged
* mapping - if a track appears on council/NPWS's own maps (not obviously
reproduced from OSM) then it's tacit approval, and should also be tagged
Any other thoughts welcome.
cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
