John Willis <jo...@mac.com> writes: [dropping things replied to already]
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: >>> Subkey: >>> Trail=main (usually there is some backbone path that all trails branch out >>> from in a large park.) >>> Trail=official (officially designated trails in a park, where that matters) >> >> I agree there should be some tag to show that a trail/path is the main >> one. >> >> I don't think official/not-official should be related to main/not. > > I was thinking like, in a large natural preserve/park, there is a loop path > or major point-to-point path that is the busiest/emphasized. > > Maybe you are trying to say we should be able to tag both values > simultaneously? 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 record each aspect or reality separately and not get into trouble when there is some way of doing things that we haven't encountered before. >>> Trail=unofficial / social (shortcuts in a park or a city) >> >> trail:official=no seems fine for any trail which is not sanctioned by >> the authorities. (I don't see why you say park or city; anyplace there >> is a notion that some places are official then others can be not.) > > If people know this is a shortcut footpath that is not normal (that > footpath along a fence that bypasses a longer route on an official > sidewalk) then saying it is "informal" or "social" or something would > be good. Otherwise it would be =yes. I don't like the word 'social'; that isn't in use around here. Again I would like to see the primary semantics be clear first, and then finer points. If a path is not sanctioned/maintained by the authorities, then it's official=no. There are multiple kinds of these. There are shortcuts as you say, which could be labeled shortcut. There are non-official access trails into conservation land. There are other non-official trails in conservation land. >>> Trail=illegal (social cuts that exist but are specifically illegal >>> because of posted signage to stay on official trails, or ones that are >>> go into an area signed as "do not enter". >> >> This feels like osm veering into judgement; that sounds like a simple >> case of access=no. > > I think this should only be used sparingly, where it is *explicity* > signed - similar to a driveway that says "emergency access only" - it > is explicit. > Many parks have official trails mapped, and where a social trail > branches off, they put a sign there that says "do not enter/sensitive > area" or similar - that is very very explicit. I agree it is good to > know for orienteering to know you have reached that point. If a > rendered map chooses to leave them off, okay - but it is good to have > the way in the dataset so it isn't added incorrectly in the future. It seems fine to put the sign in the db, or a tag like access_no=regulation access_no=posted to record the reason for the access=no. I am always trying to think about data consumers that don't know about the latest tagging schemes, so if something is a subcategory of access, or a subcategory of trail, I think it's good to keep them tagged in a way that one gets sensible results. What I was really objecting to is 'illegal'. What's law, what's landowner rules, what's conservation commission regulation is all messy. So I'd like to see a more detached characterization of reality. > Just as OSM shows motorways down to driveway parking isles and rocky > unmaintained tracks with so many different highway values, I am > interested in showing - via tags and rendering - the different levels > of non-car walking ways, from a wide and leisurely "path" in a city > park, a sidewalk along a road, a social trail through the weeds along > the top of a river retaining berm, and a signed and maintained hiking > trail of various grades and quality in a natural park. I agree with your goals here. But, I think it's messier, because the road hierarchy of primary/secondary is about importance, not physical. I was just on an A road in Scotland, which was single-track but at least had passing places. Still, it was the main road. > If we can't go beyond =path and =footpath, we need some kind of subkey I think we can't :-( > value or colon separated value to do it, and not rely on surface or > wheelchair accessibility tags to imply it - it should be as explicit > as a driveway or a grade3 track. Agreed. I think we need tags that are about the overall experience of traversing the trail and separately how important the trail is in the local trail network
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
