Mike Harris
> -----Original Message----- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Craig Wallace > Sent: 14 December 2009 18:39 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without > explicit knowledgeofthe law? > > On 14/12/2009 16:37, Mike Harris wrote: > >> Well, first of all, what you describe would still be correctly > >> labeled as a "path". However, I have to really doubt that 90% of > >> ways tagged with path are "probably unsuitable for any > traffic other > >> than pedestrian". Maybe 90% are unpaved, but unpaved does > not mean > >> "unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian". And there's > >> already a tag for surface=paved/unpaved. That's my > problem with the > >> current usage. We shouldn't have a tag for surface=unpaved and a > >> second tag for highway=surface_probably_unpaved. > >> > >> > > 100% of the paths I tag as highway=path are definitely > impossible for > > anything other than pedestrians - perhaps I'm in a more > rural area than you? > > E.g. undefined paths across fields interrupted by gates, > stiles, etc. > > - or upland / mountain hiking trails across moorland / bog > / scree / > > rocks. On these the surface changes so often with the > terrain that the > > surface= tag, which I use widely in other circumstances, is > not very helpful. > > > "definitely impossible"? That sounds like a challenge... I'm > sure some people could ride (parts of it) on a mountain bike > (or on a horse). > The surface tag doesn't need to exact, just the typical (or > worse part?) for each section. > Also, it sounds like its worth using some extra tags, eg > sac_scale / mtb:scale, especially for the upland hiking > trails. Or maybe even "smoothness". > Well, I'm always up for a challenge! But I'm talking about paths across fields with crops - ever tried biking through a maize (US: corn) field - or over a ploughed field - or through bracken - and after about 50 stiles even the keenest biker might get a little jaded - quite apart from the fact that the legality of biking might also be an issue ... There may well be a brave soul out there but I'm tagging for what 95% of people would do 95% of the time! Not keen on the smoothness= tag as some of the suggested values are a bit weird and highly subjective - tend to prefer surface= .. All a matter of taste! Take your point on upland hiking scales - I note that the German community is pretty efficient at this and I probably need to look harder at what is being done in this area - but wil it leave me time to get out there and walk / survey ? (:>) > > > > Unpaved is not necessarily rough - I know of plenty of cycleways / > > footways / paths / tracks that have a smooth compacted > gravel surface > > that I would regards as unpaved but allows cycling at well > over 20 kph > > (usually without a bell and at great peril to walkers - > only kidding > > bike-guys - well almost only ... ) > > > Yes, I agree, surface=unpaved doesn't say much about what the > path is made of, just that its not tarmac / concrete etc. For > the examples you describe, it would be more useful to use > something like surface=gravel or surface=compacted. Agree ... I usually try to be fairly specific with the surface tags and do sue surface=gravel for example. > > Craig > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
