Inge Wallin wrote: > > Yes, that is indeed what it is. I haven't tracked it yet, but there is also a > mountain bike track in that area. I suppose that should be tagged: > > highway=cycleway > sport=mountainbike > > Except... these are not really ways at all, but narrow tracks through the > woods that are not suitable for anything really, except mountainbiking. In > fact, they are narrower and worse than the highway=footway that I have > tracked so far, because they are also full of roots and stones.
I see no reason that mountain bike trails should not be mapped. It's OK if they're not rendered on the main map, or not differentiated from cycleways suitable for road bikes. > And moreover, there is a standardized color coding for the length of a track > so that red=2.5km, yellow=5km, and so on. On the rendered map, I'd really > love to have a red square rotated 45 degrees so that it's standing on one of > the corners to mark the short track and a yellow one for the 5 km (shown on > the map in the link right now). > > Map renderer developers: pleeease?? :-) IMO these specialized track categories don't need to have more detail on the main map. Someone creating a map of that exercise area perhaps could do that though, so tagging the color codes would probably be good. > I think sport=jogging and/or sport=mtb or moutainbike is good enough for now. > > It's just that the map renderers need to be enhanced too, otherway the tags > are useless. Adding highway=cycleway would be good as well. The tags aren't useless though, even if they're not rendered on the main map. A map such as the OSM cyclemap (http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/) might need to have the differentiation between a mountain bike cycleway and a general-purpose/road bike cycleway. -Alex Mauer "hawke" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
