> Would it be wrong to set sac_scale=hiking on an urban footway? I’m worried > that we’ll get highway=path, foot=designated, cycle=designated, > surface=paved, width=2.5, lit=yes, rubbish_bins_every=100m, > sac_scale=hiking. >
Same with mtb:scale. A footway or cycleway should, in my opinion, never have sac_scale or mtb:scale, unless we introduce explicit values like sac_scale=no and mtb:scale=no. If it has sac_scale=hiking or above, or mtb:scale=0 or above (remember, mtb:scale is based on the *Singletrail *Scale and even a value of 0 should only be used for a singletrail), then it's not a footway or cycleway, but a path. And if it has a sac_scale or mtb:scale value, then we should already tell by that, that it's not accessible to everyone. And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because then it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway. But again, with the current use of highway=path it can be and is used for anything. That's why depend on subtags (trolltags) and that's what we need to get away from. So yes, if we could separate footway, cycleway and path clearly from each other, then we can know that a path is always (if it's used correctly) used for unpaved paths that may not be accessible to people of all abilities. As for "hiking paths", it's also a word that confuses me. I think we're here talking about the way (that has certain physical characteristics), not the route, however people may use them (anyone can hike on a path, whether it's part of a route or not). And if we can't organize paths hierarchically like roads, then also context becomes irrelevant when separating footway and cycleway from path. /Daniel
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
