Ok, so I realize there will not really be any other way to distinguish an urban, paved path from a small forest path, other than by other attributes than highway=path itself. Path=mtb is nice for paths specifically created for MTB and nothing else. But I don't see an easily verifiable way of doing the same for other forest/mountain/meadow paths.
So we're stuck with other attributes, which mappers should be encouraged to always use together with highway=path. Like there should never be a highway=path without a surface tag. Currently only 21% of highway=path has a surface tag, which contributes to the problem we're discussing. Then there is width, which is only tagged on 3.5% of highway=path. I was discussing width of paths in another forum. For a forest path, would you say width is measured as the actual tread on the ground only? For a runner and MTB cyclist that would make sense, but for a hiker with a big backpack a width of 0.3 m may mean they think it's not possible to walk there. See these three paths for example: 1. https://ibb.co/TkJ2V1g 2. https://ibb.co/Cmtp6LK 3. https://ibb.co/qgjW5dz /Daniel Den tors 21 maj 2020 kl 23:09 skrev Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com>: > > I am not a fan of the confusing use of highway=path for foot-cycleways > and narrow mountain hiking ways, but that is a fact in OSM, and we need to > live with that. > > However I would like to underline that highway=cycleway or highway=path + > foot=designated + bicycle=designated do not necessarily imply the > suitability of the way for normal bicycles.. These tags only tell you about > he legal access of the way. Surface, smoothness, and width (or est_width), > together with the elevation profile (data that is not in OSM) are also > needed for bicycle routing.. > For hiking paths you have in addition SAC-scale and MTB-scale. > > Examples of unpaved cycleways in my city: > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Ezjn-npOmRSQ-dHkMztzl > <https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Ezjn-npOmRSQ-dHkMztzlQ> (cycleway) > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/DWHevDzL7i9eQDYSNbvCJcg > <https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/DWHevDzL7i9eQDYSNbCJcg> (foot-cycleway) > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lAnBsThrDjTxjhvfXhB0Yg (cycle lane) > > The problem is guessing by routers in case of incomplete tagging. Just to > get myself an idea I checked: > My city shows 1533 ways tagged as cycleways and foot-cycleways, of which > 91.7% with surface, 54.7% with smoothness, 52.1% with width > (This excludes all cycle lanes and a few cycleways that are not present as > separate ways in OSM) > > Basically we have the instruments - let's use them instead of inventing > new tags. > > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 16:15, Adam Franco <adamfra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For those who missed it, a related discussion was just had on this list >> about differentiating mountain-biking trails from cycleways. >> See the resulting proposal for path=mtb >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb and >> threads from April in Tagging: >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-April/051864.html >> >> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:51 AM Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 21/05/2020 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Similarly anyone creating >>> highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes" >>> should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or other less >>> harmful activity. >>> >>> While "danger" isn't a much used tag (and I'm sure wasn't a serious >>> suggestion here - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/danger#values >>> ), sometimes "foot=yes" is correct and other tags need to be taken into >>> account. I've used the area around >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431056034 as an example of that >>> before. Here "foot=yes" is correct - there is a legal right of access. " >>> sac_scale >>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac%0D%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20scale?uselang=en-GB>=demanding_alpine_hiking" >>> also makes sense here I think. >>> >>> I take Frederik's reference to Andy Allan's point about "a >>> multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering anything with >>> a highway tag the same as their most minor road style" but frankly there's >>> simply no solution to that - presumably "highway=dangerouspath" (to make up >>> a nonsensical value) or >>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=via%20ferrata would >>> still get shown as a "road". >>> >>> Map styles need to be clear about what they're showing and what they're >>> not showing and people using maps need to be able to read maps so that they >>> understand what they're being told. This isn't really a tagging issue, >>> unless OSM mappers aren't using appropriate other tags when they should >>> (sac_scale, trail_visibility, surface, etc.) >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging