Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?
Most locals on the Kokoda Trail have no footware, that goes better in mud and river crossings. All tourists ware footwear and think/know that this is a hiking route. To give an idea of 'hardness' there is one part where most are on hands and knees. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7578789 On 12/1/20 10:54 am, brad wrote: Great story Kevin. I hope they learned something from their experience. +1 on the boots, things change, back in the old days when I could still backpack it was pretty much a given that you should have sturdy boots. Now most of the long distance hikers, like you, have gotten wiser and are wearing lighter footwear. This seems all too typical for OSM. Redundant tags, and over specify things. Brad On 1/11/20 9:08 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple tags with similar meanings. But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning. No problem there! In a 'folksonomy', that's going to happen, and as someone observed, 'status quo wins.' I can recall an encounter that my daughter had on Windham High Peak, arguably the easiest of the Catskill 3500 listed summits (and please don't start arguing that Bearpen, Slide, or Hunter is easier, that's not the point!) with a father and son who were visiting from a part of New Jersey that's both flat and urban. Them: "Wow, the guidebook is horrible! It said this is an easy three-mile hike from Route 23!" Her: "Well, yeah, (looks at phone), GPS says 3.1." Them: "That's _easy?_" Her: (thinking for a moment): "No scrambling, no broken rock to cross, no streams you can't just step over, no dense brush, no deep mud, no beaver activitty... what's the problem?" Them: (groaning), "I don't want to see a _hard_ trail around here! That was straight up hill all the way!" Her: "Uhm, well, it _is_ a mountain." With subjective assessments that disparate, there are always going to be variability and outliers in the tagging. The whole discussion of boots is pretty odd. I'm thoroughly a Westerner, and I do multi-day backpacking trips in terrain like http://image.newyorkupstate.com/home/nyup-media/width2048/img/catskills/photo/2016/05/03/20267771-standard.jpg wearing trail-running shoes. The boots come out only when the snow does. The 'vigour' key is probably a bad one, because it's purely subjective. SAC and YDS scale, among others, are also pretty bad because almost all 'hiking' routes are at the lowest grade on them, and because you really have to be a specialist to grade a route. ___ 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
Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?
Great story Kevin. I hope they learned something from their experience. +1 on the boots, things change, back in the old days when I could still backpack it was pretty much a given that you should have sturdy boots. Now most of the long distance hikers, like you, have gotten wiser and are wearing lighter footwear. This seems all too typical for OSM. Redundant tags, and over specify things. Brad On 1/11/20 9:08 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple tags with similar meanings. But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning. No problem there! In a 'folksonomy', that's going to happen, and as someone observed, 'status quo wins.' I can recall an encounter that my daughter had on Windham High Peak, arguably the easiest of the Catskill 3500 listed summits (and please don't start arguing that Bearpen, Slide, or Hunter is easier, that's not the point!) with a father and son who were visiting from a part of New Jersey that's both flat and urban. Them: "Wow, the guidebook is horrible! It said this is an easy three-mile hike from Route 23!" Her: "Well, yeah, (looks at phone), GPS says 3.1." Them: "That's _easy?_" Her: (thinking for a moment): "No scrambling, no broken rock to cross, no streams you can't just step over, no dense brush, no deep mud, no beaver activitty... what's the problem?" Them: (groaning), "I don't want to see a _hard_ trail around here! That was straight up hill all the way!" Her: "Uhm, well, it _is_ a mountain." With subjective assessments that disparate, there are always going to be variability and outliers in the tagging. The whole discussion of boots is pretty odd. I'm thoroughly a Westerner, and I do multi-day backpacking trips in terrain like http://image.newyorkupstate.com/home/nyup-media/width2048/img/catskills/photo/2016/05/03/20267771-standard.jpg wearing trail-running shoes. The boots come out only when the snow does. The 'vigour' key is probably a bad one, because it's purely subjective. SAC and YDS scale, among others, are also pretty bad because almost all 'hiking' routes are at the lowest grade on them, and because you really have to be a specialist to grade a route. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple > tags with similar meanings. > > But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually > used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning. No problem there! In a 'folksonomy', that's going to happen, and as someone observed, 'status quo wins.' I can recall an encounter that my daughter had on Windham High Peak, arguably the easiest of the Catskill 3500 listed summits (and please don't start arguing that Bearpen, Slide, or Hunter is easier, that's not the point!) with a father and son who were visiting from a part of New Jersey that's both flat and urban. Them: "Wow, the guidebook is horrible! It said this is an easy three-mile hike from Route 23!" Her: "Well, yeah, (looks at phone), GPS says 3.1." Them: "That's _easy?_" Her: (thinking for a moment): "No scrambling, no broken rock to cross, no streams you can't just step over, no dense brush, no deep mud, no beaver activitty... what's the problem?" Them: (groaning), "I don't want to see a _hard_ trail around here! That was straight up hill all the way!" Her: "Uhm, well, it _is_ a mountain." With subjective assessments that disparate, there are always going to be variability and outliers in the tagging. The whole discussion of boots is pretty odd. I'm thoroughly a Westerner, and I do multi-day backpacking trips in terrain like http://image.newyorkupstate.com/home/nyup-media/width2048/img/catskills/photo/2016/05/03/20267771-standard.jpg wearing trail-running shoes. The boots come out only when the snow does. The 'vigour' key is probably a bad one, because it's purely subjective. SAC and YDS scale, among others, are also pretty bad because almost all 'hiking' routes are at the lowest grade on them, and because you really have to be a specialist to grade a route. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?
To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple tags with similar meanings. But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning. On 1/11/20, Peter Elderson wrote: > +1 > If don't see this as a problem. If more clarity is needed, add tags for > specific aspects. E.g "vigour" scale if one exists. Boot type recommendation > scale, where 1=flipflop and 10=hoverboots. > > Mvg Peter Elderson > >> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 14:59 heeft Joseph Eisenberg >> het volgende geschreven: >> >> Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on >> wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes" >> which led to a new template >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations >> - used on route=hiking and route=foot pages. >> >> However, I'm disappointed that the text ended up claiming this: >> >> "route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any >> limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions. As a >> guideline, you could say that walking shoes (at a pinch, even >> flip-flops) are adequate for this type of walking trail." >> >> This is all quite subjective. Folks here in Indonesia climb 3500 meter >> mountain passes in flip-flops. >> >> "route=hiking is used for routes that rather match Wikipedia's >> definition: "A long, vigorous walk, usually on trails, in the >> countryside"). As a guideline, you could say that a hiking trail needs >> hiking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy >> undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow >> streams." >> >> Again, very Western / European perspective to mention "needs hiking >> boots". >> >> I asked about this on the wiki talk page, and Brian de Ford said: >> >> "Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing >> that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the >> differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more >> vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in >> elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves >> changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops). >> Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of >> footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the >> surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a >> difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW, >> parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking >> where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because >> there is no route)." >> >> It sounds like there is no verifiable difference between route=foot >> and route=hiking, so database users should not expect these tags to be >> used in a consistent way. Each mapper has there own idea of what they >> mean. >> >> - Joseph Eisenberg >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?
+1 If don't see this as a problem. If more clarity is needed, add tags for specific aspects. E.g "vigour" scale if one exists. Boot type recommendation scale, where 1=flipflop and 10=hoverboots. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 11 jan. 2020 om 14:59 heeft Joseph Eisenberg > het volgende geschreven: > > Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on > wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes" > which led to a new template > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations > - used on route=hiking and route=foot pages. > > However, I'm disappointed that the text ended up claiming this: > > "route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any > limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions. As a > guideline, you could say that walking shoes (at a pinch, even > flip-flops) are adequate for this type of walking trail." > > This is all quite subjective. Folks here in Indonesia climb 3500 meter > mountain passes in flip-flops. > > "route=hiking is used for routes that rather match Wikipedia's > definition: "A long, vigorous walk, usually on trails, in the > countryside"). As a guideline, you could say that a hiking trail needs > hiking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy > undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow > streams." > > Again, very Western / European perspective to mention "needs hiking boots". > > I asked about this on the wiki talk page, and Brian de Ford said: > > "Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing > that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the > differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more > vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in > elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves > changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops). > Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of > footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the > surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a > difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW, > parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking > where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because > there is no route)." > > It sounds like there is no verifiable difference between route=foot > and route=hiking, so database users should not expect these tags to be > used in a consistent way. Each mapper has there own idea of what they > mean. > > - Joseph Eisenberg > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?
If I remember well, there is also route=walking... You are right that it doesn't make very much sense to make the distinction. But now to get all mappers to choose for either hiking or foot will prove to be an impossible task. As usual it will be status quo that wins, like you saw in the result of the previous discussion about this. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with this, you'll obviously need it to get anything to change. Polyglot On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 2:59 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on > wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes" > which led to a new template > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations > - used on route=hiking and route=foot pages. > > However, I'm disappointed that the text ended up claiming this: > > "route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any > limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions. As a > guideline, you could say that walking shoes (at a pinch, even > flip-flops) are adequate for this type of walking trail." > > This is all quite subjective. Folks here in Indonesia climb 3500 meter > mountain passes in flip-flops. > > "route=hiking is used for routes that rather match Wikipedia's > definition: "A long, vigorous walk, usually on trails, in the > countryside"). As a guideline, you could say that a hiking trail needs > hiking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy > undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow > streams." > > Again, very Western / European perspective to mention "needs hiking boots". > > I asked about this on the wiki talk page, and Brian de Ford said: > > "Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing > that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the > differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more > vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in > elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves > changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops). > Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of > footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the > surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a > difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW, > parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking > where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because > there is no route)." > > It sounds like there is no verifiable difference between route=foot > and route=hiking, so database users should not expect these tags to be > used in a consistent way. Each mapper has there own idea of what they > mean. > > - Joseph Eisenberg > > ___ > 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] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?
Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes" which led to a new template https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations - used on route=hiking and route=foot pages. However, I'm disappointed that the text ended up claiming this: "route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions. As a guideline, you could say that walking shoes (at a pinch, even flip-flops) are adequate for this type of walking trail." This is all quite subjective. Folks here in Indonesia climb 3500 meter mountain passes in flip-flops. "route=hiking is used for routes that rather match Wikipedia's definition: "A long, vigorous walk, usually on trails, in the countryside"). As a guideline, you could say that a hiking trail needs hiking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow streams." Again, very Western / European perspective to mention "needs hiking boots". I asked about this on the wiki talk page, and Brian de Ford said: "Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops). Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW, parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because there is no route)." It sounds like there is no verifiable difference between route=foot and route=hiking, so database users should not expect these tags to be used in a consistent way. Each mapper has there own idea of what they mean. - Joseph Eisenberg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
