Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

Just doing some looking & spotted: https://qorf-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/11153757/TrackGradingSystem_UserGuide.pdf which includes Glossary AS 2156.1-2001 Walking Tracks - Classification and Signage The Australian Walking Track Grading System benchmarks to

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

Ian, +1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international perspective. I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and Sweden, also both countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely "alpine" and also came to the conclusion that what matters is the type of people

[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

I strongly prefer highway=path over highway=footway. Most "paths" that get tagged as footways are not signed to say that bicycles are NOT permitted - hence bicycles ARE permitted. Hence, if a path is tagged as a footway, you then need to go and add a 2nd tag "bicycle=yes" - otherwise routers

[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading System. It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire Management - https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/austr alian-walking-track-grading-system). The AWTGS defines 5 track

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On this subject, just working through Notes & found this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=15/-36.0545/146.8886 (you'll have to turn Notes on to see it!), which reads: *" Private Property. The following are not public tracks/trails. TV Track, Rons Trail, Kuhne Trail, part of Gorge

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 09:34, Phil Wyatt wrote: > It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater > Hobart’ as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it > in a ‘park’ of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets > I must admit to having recently

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater Hobart’ as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it in a ‘park’ of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 10:25 AM To: Phil Wyatt Cc: Tony

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path, 10% footway. On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt wrote: > Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as > vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') > > Here is a quick Overpass query

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Try this query - it will work on any area (by bounding box) and also includes cycleways https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fvX -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 8:26 AM To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: Phil Wyatt ; talk OSM Australian List Subject:

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Try the very northern end of the park – the major walkway (that has the power and sewerage pipes under it) is a footway, as are some of the other local tracks, but boardwalks (not tagged) on the Overland Track are still paths Cheers - Phil From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Friday, 28

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway? No, Phil's query works for me, there is very little footway so its hard to see at low zoom. I changed the colours from red and orange to blue and green and its a bit better Tony

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:35, Phil Wyatt wrote: > Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Yep, its tough sometimes to get definitive answers to tagging issues when sometimes there are multiple tags that mean the same thing -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 11:33 PM To: Phil Wyatt Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian List'

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') Hi This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User who wanted to tag all footpaths in Victoria with bicycle=no and the community consensus was that

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe try it o your local parks https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus Cheers - Phil -Original Message-

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Hi Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit prohibition of bicycles. But I could be wrong Tony Thanks folks, OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Thanks folks, OK – It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the ‘bushwalking’ track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where there is

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt wrote: > Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do > not use highway =footway > and the > preference is highway

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Hi I assumed that highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not allow bicycles highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not allow pedestrians and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes but maybe I am wrong. Tony

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On 27/1/22 09:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 18:01, Andrew Harvey wrote: Obviously river conditions change, but I think it's useful to tag what's usually the case: 1. creek crossing where generall the water level is so low that you won't have water