Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

This one of the more bewildering threads I've ever seen on tagging. Surely we have more than enough tags to indicate the physical attributes of ways for movement by foot or single track vehicles, and yes as nearly always there is a some overlap and grey area between when you would use a footway

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > The former are not very important to show because there is already the road > that will be rendered. I know in most places, especially residential/unclassified/ tertiary roads that make up a majority of

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > A path through a park is not so substantially different from a trail in my > eyes, there can be bigger differences among different trails alone for > instance. This is a fundamental disagreement between

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

Javbw > On Jun 14, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: > > "trail=main" might work as a concept for smaller parks with a few > high-attraction features and a well-designed trail system, but for > larger parks, especially where the trail network evolved rather than >

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

sent from a phone > Il giorno 14 giu 2016, alle ore 14:28, Greg Troxel ha > scritto: > > So perhaps we need a minor tag, not a main tag. yes, this sounds reasonable. Often there are minor paths that lead "nowhere" and end. It would be nice to not show these in lower zoom

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 14:23, Greg Troxel ha >> scritto: >> It could be that the trail everybody thinks >> is main is not official. And non-main trails may be official and may >> be

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: >> Yes. That's all I meant. It could be that the trail everybody thinks >> is main is not official. And non-main trails may be official and may >> be not-official. So I would like to see one tag for official/not and >> one for main/not, so we can

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

Mark Wagner writes: > I've been mentally trying to apply this to the parks I've mapped, and > it's just not working. > > Palisades Park (2.5 sq. km) has two trails that are clearly "main". > However, they're both maintained as access roads for brush-fire trucks, > so I've

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

sent from a phone > Il giorno 14 giu 2016, alle ore 04:56, johnw ha scritto: > > I just want to divorce trails from sidewalks ! +1, it was a very bad idea from the beginning to use highway=path/footway for sidewalks. They are much more similar to lanes than to independent

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

sent from a phone > Il giorno 14 giu 2016, alle ore 03:39, John Willis ha scritto: > > Look, first and foremost, I want to get the idea of "path/footway" - a > Flat-ish way maintained for pedestrians and "trail" for hiking/trekking > separated in some manner. I think we can

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

sent from a phone > Il giorno 14 giu 2016, alle ore 05:29, Mark Wagner ha > scritto: > > Palisades Park (2.5 sq. km) has two trails that are clearly "main". > However, they're both maintained as access roads for brush-fire trucks, > so I've mapped them as