On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 20:34, Daniel Westergren <wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in >> practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as >> the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it. >> > > This is likely the default way of interpreting highway=path with no > additional tags. > What I called a "hiking" path without additional tags is highway=path with sac_cale=hiking > > *I still think the distinction needs to be much more clear between > path|footway|cycleway for all the cases when no additional tag is being > used. * > The real world situation is much more variegated. When I see something that look like a track, feels like a track, wide enough for a tractor, but has a foot-cycle-way blue disk sign (in many Europens countries) I tag this as a highway=track plus its appropriate properties tags plus bicycle=designated plus foot designated plus segregated=no (there is no white line on the forest track.. If it is half width, it's a path. > Fine with JOSM messing up combined foot- and cycleways (I tried to look, but couldn't find an issue tracker to discuss that misbehaviour with the JOSM developers). In JOSM I get a warning if I add a combined foot- and cycleway without adding a segregated tag. *If highway=path with no surface tag would get the same warning in both JOSM and iD, we'd be getting at least somewhere.* JOSM is not messing anything up, it only uses as presets a way of tagging foot-cycle-ways that is widely used in Germany, Italy, and other countries. iD does take a different approach, possibly also because the situation in the US is different. I don't think it's JOSMs fault. That tagging was already in wide use before JOSM had it as preset, if I remember well. > Good that this discussion has lead to some improvement of the description of sac_scale. As has been mentioned, *sac_scale and mtb:scale need values for "no"* as well, to actively say that "although this is a path, it doesn't qualify for a hiking path or an mtb singletrail". *And the description for those tags would need to emphasize when not to use the tag, or use the "no" value. Otherwise sac_scale=hiking makes no distinction whatsoever between a paved path and a hiking path that may be quite technical.* I agree with the need for a default value for sac_scale. It should be sac_scale=hiking. MTV_scale does not need a separate default value, as the SAC scale "hiking" is clear enough for an MTB rider as well (I think). The problem may be that MTB scale=0 assumes no positive gradient (but I am not an MTB expert) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
