On 16/07/2011 15:27, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse
<li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk> wrote:
"highway=path, path=hiking" doesn't say any more to me than
"highway=footway" on its own would.
The distinction is "well constructed" versus "rough, minimal maintenance".
highway=path, path=hiking:
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path-1-238412973779541Zf.jpg
highway=footway:
http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through-Strid-Wood_web.jpg?&k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood
This distinction exists and is meaningful. The question is whether
this is a good way to express it.
There are plenty of "hiking paths" that are well constructed, and not
rough or narrow. So I don't think path=hiking is very useful at
specifying that difference.
Also, some rough / narrow paths might be used for mountain biking or
horse riding etc, not just hiking.
What about something equivalent to tracktype? ie with numbers/grades. So
your first photo could be grade 4 or 5, and the second photo grade 1.
Craig
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
