ad running), but also to roughly estimate running
time (in addition to elevation/slopes).
What do you think?
/Daniel Westergren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Yeah, the SAC scale (and the CAI scale) are not what I'm looking for here.
As mentioned, those are for alpinism and even climbing the highest mountain
in Sweden would only take me to level 2.
Smoothness is on the other end. According to the example photos most forest
trail would be very bad to imp
I think this is really great! I'm creating a site with Swedish routes for
potentially setting FKT's, Fastest Known Time. Getting the GPX file (as
well as distance and elevation) from a hiking route on Waymarked Trails is
usually problematic if all alternative routes, excursions etc. are part of
the
Right. Naming conventions is a minor issue and not what this proposal is
about.
Still, if all hierarchy levels have the same name, it will be confusing for
users as to what's what. But maybe that's something that renderers also can
do, like Waymarked Trails can add "alternative", "connection" etc.
Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the current
status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more useful
for forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are usually
more up-to-date, to be honest). But the default rendering doesn't
different
nsumers.
/Daniel
Den tors 21 maj 2020 kl 10:13 skrev Tom Pfeifer :
> On 21.05.2020 09:21, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> > OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car
> roads
> > (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest).
>
>
>
> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering
> is discussed elsewhere.
>
> Then why you mention it?
>
I was trying to give a context. Sorry if it's not relevant everywhere. My
point is that the usage of highway=path for forest and mountain trails has
increased and
>
> An interesting side thread to this is not about the visibility but about
> the accessibility - at DWG we've recently received a plea from a member
> of a volunteer mountain rescue team to remove the highway=path attribute
> from a dangerous approach to a mountain that was only suitable for
> ex
Ok, so I realize there will not really be any other way to distinguish an
urban, paved path from a small forest path, other than by other attributes
than highway=path itself. Path=mtb is nice for paths specifically created
for MTB and nothing else. But I don't see an easily verifiable way of doing
space" available for
the path more generally.
/Daniel
Den fre 22 maj 2020 kl 13:34 skrev Andrew Harvey :
>
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 20:54, Daniel Westergren wrote:
>
>> Ok, so I realize there will not really be any other way to distinguish an
>> urban, paved p
> Agreed, though I think the biggest driver for the casual mapper would be
> to close the feedback loop so they can actually see this change. ie. making
> the default OSM style render width and surface.
>
Yeah, better improving editors than forcing people to tag something they
may not be able to t
ng <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> May 22, 2020, 13:55 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 21:44, Daniel Westergren wrote:
>
> Yeah, I guess there's no way to force the user to add a surface tag when
> addi
be way behind.
Thanks for valuable input!!
/Daniel
Den fre 22 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Andy Townsend :
> On 22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> > And there actually seems to be a pull request finally solving the
> > paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!?
aths I’m mapping vary widely. Getting
>> wider and thinner and going from gravel to dirt to sections with many trees
>> roots. Plus the surface tag is rather subjective.
>>
>> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>>
>> On 22 May 2020, at 17:48, Daniel Westergren
Great discussion! I think we're discussing two different things here. One
is about differentiating *trail* (not necessarily hiking trail) from other
kinds of highway=path and the other is about *difficulty of a (hiking)
trail* in terms of how technical and demanding it is (and thus who can use
it a
Well said John. When we now have highway=path, we need a subtag.
Question is, on what criteria would we differentiate a trail from another
"path"? Groomed vs beaten may not be specific enough. But by using some
combination of dictionary definitions of trail, in the sense of path, could
we come up
>
> For example around me a "Fire Trail" is tagged as highway=track, and a
> "Track" (as in a remote forest/bush walking path) is tagged as
> highway=footway/path (probably what you're proposing as "trail". So we need
> definitions that can be applied globally regardless of how things are
> locally
Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can be
a path.
I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant
attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path...
In Sweden, 99% of all cycleways are open to pedestrians and there are
presets that have messed up the distinction between
cycleway, footway and path? The core of the issue is obviously that some
people think that path can be used equally for a combined footway/cycleway,
sidewalk etc. that is not specifically designated for ONLY pedestrians OR
cyclists.
/Daniel
De
> Would it be wrong to set sac_scale=hiking on an urban footway? I’m worried
> that we’ll get highway=path, foot=designated, cycle=designated,
> surface=paved, width=2.5, lit=yes, rubbish_bins_every=100m,
> sac_scale=hiking.
>
Same with mtb:scale.
A footway or cycleway should, in my opinion, neve
>
> And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in
> practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as
> the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it.
>
This is likely the default way of interpreting highway=path with no
Ok, I hope this will be my final post in this long thread. I will try to
summarize what I understand from the discussion as the main issuesa and
what needs to be addressed to make it easier for mappers and data
consumers.
I would also suggest that instead of filling the inboxes of each and
everyon
Ok, two things.
*Function vs physical characteristics*
First, I've increasingly realized what's probably at the heart of this 12+
years discussion, the enormous problem of interpreting
highway=path|footway|cycleway (just like is currently being discussed about
highway=track) in two entirely confli
/Daniel
Den sön 31 maj 2020 kl 09:37 skrev Jonathon Rossi :
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:17 PM Daniel Westergren
> wrote:
>
>> Should we close the discussion in this mailing list, continue in a
>> smaller format and then report back the concluding suggestions for
>> conf
> you are touching on an essential misunderstanding in this conversation, a
> misunderstanding that we encounter in many different discussions in OSM.
>
> Those " words that people normally would associate ...", i.e. "path",
> "footway", "track", ... are *code* words, they do not have any intrinsic
>
> As I recall, a long time ago this thread started off with the concern
> "people from the city might die on this hiking trail". Is that a
> function or a physical characteristic?
>
That wasn't my main concern when starting the thread, but it was for others
(which is why these kinds of discussio
>
> I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag
> according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but
> it's still a dirt path.
>
Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness
paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main
Interesting that this discussion came back from another angle. Obviously
there is an issue here that we need some kind of consensus about. There are
advantages with the wiki-style community that OSM is, but cases like this
also demonstrate the clear disadvantages when there is no board or similar
w
Hi all,
Being a relative newcomer to OSM (made my first edit one month ago,
although registered a year ago), but having edited intensely during this
month, I find this discussion interesting. I personally agree with all of
you to some extent. It's not necessarily a problem with multiple tags for
t
29 matches
Mail list logo
