Re: [talk-au] Highway=path
The Australian Tagging Guidelines says to tag them highway=path, foot=yes. I think surface=unpaved or dirt or ground should be included too. Yup. I've long argued that objectively verifiable tags, like surface, are very useful. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path
The Australian Tagging Guidelines says to tag them highway=path, foot=yes. I think surface=unpaved or dirt or ground should be included too. Yup. I've long argued that objectively verifiable tags, like surface, are very useful. Yeah I recon that would be good, and have the surface hyperlinked back to the global wiki. I think it would also be good in the section for Urban Footpaths and Cycleways where it mentions highway=footway. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path (David Clark)
My request: Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well. You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a practical way. David, As an off-road OSM user path/track mapper, I'll certainly bear this in mind regards Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path
On 3/06/2014 9:52 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: For a long time I've been tagging for the renderer, using highway=footway for paved footways and highway=path for unpaved footways. I only just realised that this is wrong and I should use the surface tag for that. There are a lot of bushwalking tracks tagged as highway=path, I think that these should actually be highway=footway + surface=ground if they are signposted as walking tracks. Unfortunately the 'path' / 'footway' thing is poor. In the Australian guide lines the basic separation is 'footway' = urban and 'path' = bush/non-urban. Roads and other things are not separated by where they are, so I think this is poor! I think 'footway' should be paved, 1.2m wide, pedestrians yes, motorvehicle no (other than the postman), bicycle state dependant! ... unless tagged otherwise. A path might be taken as unpaved, 2m wide, pedestrians yes, motorvehicle no, bicycle yes ... unless tagged otherwise.The raods are treated much better ... lots of types all with their defaults. TRhe same could be done for paths ... but won't be ... path=footpath (defalt pedestrian= yes, surface=paved, width = 1.2meters, motorvehicle=no); path=cycleway; path=shared,path=bridleway;path=walkingtrack;path=runningtrack;path=staircase;path=escilator;path=lift;path= Back to the real world. Along with the 'surface' tag ... the other tags I'd like to see used are 'width' and 'source'. (The source tag is not for rendering but for future editors information). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path Oz Tag Guideline
On 4/06/2014 10:48 AM, David Clark wrote: This is what I'd suggest is added to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki if there is no objection. (This is a simplification of what is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface ). Add to both sections: * Urban Footpaths and Cycleways * Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks ---start Paths for non-motorised use (highway=footway; highway=path) should always be tagged with surface http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface given that there is no default for such paths. surface http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface=paved is non-specific and covers the specific tags of sealed, tarmac, asphalt, bitumen, concrete. surface http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface=unpaved is treated as the opposite of paved, specific tags are dirt, earth, ground, grass, gravel, metal, sand, wood. ---end What do you think? All the best, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au The present 'guidelines' are good in relating tags to the legal things. They are not good for the mapper. And they separate things on location rather than what they are. For a guide for mappers and in use I'd prefer highway=footway A paved path intended for pedestrians. Defaults; surface = paved; foot=yes, bicycle=state specific ... mostly permissive (child/children under 12 + accompanying adult/s, width =1.2 meters highway=path An unpaved path intended for pedestrians. Defaults;surface = unpaved; foot=yes, bicycle=yes, width =2 meters highway=cycleway A path intended for cyclists. Defaults; foot=no, bicycle=yes, width =2 meters; surface = paved Thus the difference between footpath and path becomes the surface rather than the location. The defaults should cover the majority thus easing the tagging load. The difference between 'paved' and 'unpaved' .. consider a rock surface .. if it is natural then 'unpaved' .. if layed out/treated then 'paved' it has much to do with the finish i.e. smooth or rough. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path Oz Tag Guideline
I've always taken the reference to urban in Urban Footpaths and Cycleways and non urban in Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks as just to help the reader understand the type of feature relavent to that section. I've never taken it as a limitation on the locations where tags can be applied or not applied. On 4/06/2014 10:48 AM, David Clark wrote: This is what I'd suggest is added to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki if there is no objection. (This is a simplification of what is at [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface ). Add to both sections: * Urban Footpaths and Cycleways * Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks ---start Paths for non-motorised use (highway=footway; highway=path) should always be tagged with [2]surface given that there is no default for such paths. [3]surface=paved is non-specific and covers the specific tags of sealed, tarmac, asphalt, bitumen, concrete. [4]surface=unpaved is treated as the opposite of paved, specific tags are dirt, earth, ground, grass, gravel, metal, sand, wood. ---end What do you think? All the best, David ___ Talk-au mailing list [5]Talk-au@openstreetmap.org [6]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au The present 'guidelines' are good in relating tags to the legal things. They are not good for the mapper. And they separate things on location rather than what they are. For a guide for mappers and in use I'd prefer highway=footway A paved path intended for pedestrians. Defaults; surface = paved; foot=yes, bicycle=state specific ... mostly permissive (child/children under 12 + accompanying adult/s, width =1.2 meters highway=path An unpaved path intended for pedestrians. Defaults;surface = unpaved; foot=yes, bicycle=yes, width =2 meters highway=cycleway A path intended for cyclists. Defaults; foot=no, bicycle=yes, width =2 meters; surface = paved Thus the difference between footpath and path becomes the surface rather than the location. The defaults should cover the majority thus easing the tagging load. The difference between 'paved' and 'unpaved' .. consider a rock surface .. if it is natural then 'unpaved' .. if layed out/treated then 'paved' it has much to do with the finish i.e. smooth or rough. ___ Talk-au mailing list [7]Talk-au@openstreetmap.org [8]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au References 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface 3. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface 4. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface 5. mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 6. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 7. mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 8. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path Oz Tag Guideline
Whatever we do, let's do it globally. We shouldn't duplicate global content on the local tagging guidelines. It gets outdated. Let's just link to the global doco. Ian. On 4 Jun 2014, at 10:48 am, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: This is what I'd suggest is added to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki if there is no objection. (This is a simplification of what is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface ). Add to both sections: * Urban Footpaths and Cycleways * Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks ---start Paths for non-motorised use (highway=footway; highway=path) should always be tagged with surface given that there is no default for such paths. surface=paved is non-specific and covers the specific tags of sealed, tarmac, asphalt, bitumen, concrete. surface=unpaved is treated as the opposite of paved, specific tags are dirt, earth, ground, grass, gravel, metal, sand, wood. ---end What do you think? All the best, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path
I probably should clarify, I'm really talking about paths that have been tagged highway=path without including any other tags. I'm sure with a bit of direction and encouragement people would include the surface=what ever it is tag. If the mapper doesn't know the surface, then fair enough, leave it out. But I think more often than not the mapper probably would know at least enough to tag it paved or dirt. It's a case of mapping what is physically there, a rocky, rooty bushwalking trail for example should be tagged differently to a concrete path that parents push a kiddies pram along. All the best, David - Original message - From: David Clark [1]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au To: [2]talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] Highway=path Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:45:55 +0930 I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started doing my own rendering for gps. From this I've gained a new insight into the highway=path tag so am posting here. Firstly my focus is on tracks and trails so that is where I'm coming from. The basics of what I have noticed is that a lot ways are tagged highway=path with no other information. I have found this to be a difficult problem when it comes to rendering. The highway=path tag is a little different to the other highway tags. Firstly it covers quite a broad range of features for walking, cycling, horse riding. Secondly it has no default surface type. For example roads default is paved unless otherwise specified, highway=track defaults to unpaved. Highway=path doesn't have a default. Before messing around with rendering I would tag as highway=path and not bother too much with the other assortment of tags. Partly this is because there are heaps of tags that can be used and there was no particular direction on their priority or importance of use. For rendering I really need a surface tag included to separate the paths into practical catagories. Having no surface tag results in such a large mix of data that it becomes impractial to define any further. However if the surface=paved,dirt.. whatever is used the usefulness of the data is massively increased. For rendering I (and other examples of rendering I have seen) use the highway=path, surface=paved,dirt..etc tag to split the data into paths that are paved and paths that are not paved. This results in a practical ability to split surfaced paths (butumen, cement, pavers etc) and trails (gravel, dirt etc). I'd like to see the difference between: walking trails, dirt trails, single track etc. and paved paths, bitumen paths, concrete paths etc. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So in summary: highway=path is a unique tag because it covers a broader range of features than most tags. highway=path has no surface default like most other way tags do. adding the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc adds a much need qualifier for pratical rendering. My request: Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well. You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a practical way. Secondly I think this is worth adding to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki in some form. ie Please add the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc when tagging paths. Preferred minimum being paved or dirt. What do you think? All the best, David ___ Talk-au mailing list [3]Talk-au@openstreetmap.org [4]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au References 1. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 2. mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org 3. mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 4. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path
Sounds good to me David. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: I probably should clarify, I'm really talking about paths that have been tagged highway=path without including any other tags. I'm sure with a bit of direction and encouragement people would include the surface=what ever it is tag. If the mapper doesn't know the surface, then fair enough, leave it out. But I think more often than not the mapper probably would know at least enough to tag it paved or dirt. It's a case of mapping what is physically there, a rocky, rooty bushwalking trail for example should be tagged differently to a concrete path that parents push a kiddies pram along. All the best, David - Original message - From: David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] Highway=path Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:45:55 +0930 I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started doing my own rendering for gps. From this I've gained a new insight into the highway=path tag so am posting here. Firstly my focus is on tracks and trails so that is where I'm coming from. The basics of what I have noticed is that a lot ways are tagged highway=path with no other information. I have found this to be a difficult problem when it comes to rendering. The highway=path tag is a little different to the other highway tags. Firstly it covers quite a broad range of features for walking, cycling, horse riding. Secondly it has no default surface type. For example roads default is paved unless otherwise specified, highway=track defaults to unpaved. Highway=path doesn't have a default. Before messing around with rendering I would tag as highway=path and not bother too much with the other assortment of tags. Partly this is because there are heaps of tags that can be used and there was no particular direction on their priority or importance of use. For rendering I really need a surface tag included to separate the paths into practical catagories. Having no surface tag results in such a large mix of data that it becomes impractial to define any further. However if the surface=paved,dirt.. whatever is used the usefulness of the data is massively increased. For rendering I (and other examples of rendering I have seen) use the highway=path, surface=paved,dirt..etc tag to split the data into paths that are paved and paths that are not paved. This results in a practical ability to split surfaced paths (butumen, cement, pavers etc) and trails (gravel, dirt etc). I'd like to see the difference between: walking trails, dirt trails, single track etc. and paved paths, bitumen paths, concrete paths etc. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So in summary: highway=path is a unique tag because it covers a broader range of features than most tags. highway=path has no surface default like most other way tags do. adding the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc adds a much need qualifier for pratical rendering. My request: Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well. You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a practical way. Secondly I think this is worth adding to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki in some form. ie Please add the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc when tagging paths. Preferred minimum being paved or dirt. What do you think? All the best, David *___* Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- *I'm trekking 100km non-stop for charity! To support our team:* [image: otw-email-banner.png (400×45)] https://trailwalker.oxfam.org.au/team/home/17313 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Highway=path
I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started doing my own rendering for gps. From this I've gained a new insight into the highway=path tag so am posting here. Firstly my focus is on tracks and trails so that is where I'm coming from. The basics of what I have noticed is that a lot ways are tagged highway=path with no other information. I have found this to be a difficult problem when it comes to rendering. The highway=path tag is a little different to the other highway tags. Firstly it covers quite a broad range of features for walking, cycling, horse riding. Secondly it has no default surface type. For example roads default is paved unless otherwise specified, highway=track defaults to unpaved. Highway=path doesn't have a default. Before messing around with rendering I would tag as highway=path and not bother too much with the other assortment of tags. Partly this is because there are heaps of tags that can be used and there was no particular direction on their priority or importance of use. For rendering I really need a surface tag included to separate the paths into practical catagories. Having no surface tag results in such a large mix of data that it becomes impractial to define any further. However if the surface=paved,dirt.. whatever is used the usefulness of the data is massively increased. For rendering I (and other examples of rendering I have seen) use the highway=path, surface=paved,dirt..etc tag to split the data into paths that are paved and paths that are not paved. This results in a practical ability to split surfaced paths (butumen, cement, pavers etc) and trails (gravel, dirt etc). I'd like to see the difference between: walking trails, dirt trails, single track etc. and paved paths, bitumen paths, concrete paths etc. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So in summary: highway=path is a unique tag because it covers a broader range of features than most tags. highway=path has no surface default like most other way tags do. adding the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc adds a much need qualifier for pratical rendering. My request: Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well. You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a practical way. Secondly I think this is worth adding to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki in some form. ie Please add the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc when tagging paths. Preferred minimum being paved or dirt. What do you think? All the best, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
