Andy Allan wrote: >Sent: 21 January 2008 10:34 AM >To: Nick Whitelegg >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] walking routes? > >On Jan 21, 2008 10:19 AM, Nick Whitelegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> >Also walking routes? This would be good news. I started with >> >walking (hiking) route around Nuremberg. What are the >> >recommended relation tags for walking routes? >> >> Do you mean walking routes as in paths, or walking routes as in a >specific >> route you follow for a day's walk? The former would be highway=footway, >> plus foot=yes if an officially recognised path - whilst the latter are >not >> currently on OSM. > >I think it's the latter, the same as for cycling "routes" being the >meta, rather than the physical ("cycleway"). I've thought about this >before but I never followed it through. I really think that they >cycling stuff works well, and it could easily be replicated into >walking by using the idea of national/regional/local walking routes >and refs/names, e.g. > >nfr = yes, nfr_name = Penine Way >lfr = proposed, lfr_name = Wandle Trail, lfr_ref = W34 > >for national footway route, local footway route and so on. *I'm only >proposing the concept, not the tag names* - I think whoever kicks this >off should come up with something better than nfr (!), but I think it >would be nice to work in a parallel fashion to the way we deal with >cycle routes i.e. completely separating the route information from >everything else, and having a internationally-applicable hierarchy.
nwr/rwr/lwr works for me (national/regional/local walking route) Some might also use (be using) long_distance_footpath/trail or something similar, but that's because that's the way we refer to long routes in the UK and I don't think we should use that as a standard. In many countries footpaths are numbered (but a trip to the local library is normally needed in the UK to get hold of them for public footpaths) so I can see that following a method similar to the cycle network should work well but might be a little more difficult to visualise in the UK and perhaps other places because of a lack of numbering on the ground. Footpath routes are far more prevalent than cycle routes so some method of differentiating them on a map needs to be found. Perhaps between paved and unpaved routes etc. > >And as an aside to Jo, I'll probably put walking routes on my cycle >map since I like walking too and, well, it's my map, so I get to chose >what goes on it! Would be great to see :-) > >Cheers, >Andy > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
