I also think an official top level tag is needed to differentiate between footways and hiking trails, e.g., highway=trail. IMO, the issues of importance, access, as well as rendering, will all need to be worked out after this critical decision has been made. I don't believe a second-level footway=sidewalk will suffice for this distinction either. Are we to presume that if it's missing we're looking at a hiking trail? There are already ~5400 uses of highway=trail in OSM but the definition needs to be nailed down and added to the Wiki. Many of the ways tagged highway=trail are probably derived from old highly inaccurate Tiger data in the U.S. but the word "trail" in that dataset was used intentionally.
My 2 cents On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 14:23, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> ha > scritto: > > 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 > > > can you give a definition of main/not? Is this about the amount of people > that take a certain path? Or about the things I can find along? Or? > Is this binary or can there be intermediate levels of "main-ness"? > > > > > > 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 might be official paths that aren't maintained. I prefer to stick to > the established key informal: if it is not built or signposted but > developed out of common/spontaneous use, it's informal. > "official" is currently used less than 80 times and would not add anything > (IMHO) that informal doesn't catch > > > > > > access_no=regulation > > access_no=posted > > > > to record the reason for the access=no. > > > I suggest source:access for these, like we do with maxspeed. > > > > > > > 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. > > > +1 > > > > > > I agree with your goals here. But, I think it's messier, because the > > road hierarchy of primary/secondary is about importance, not physical. > > > +1, partly the definition is legal (e.g. motorway). There are also some > significant differences between roads and paths (e.g. there is no give way > on paths, it is less clear which one is main and which is less) > > cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
