> On May 30, 2020, at 6:46 AM, Daniel Westergren <wes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok, I hope this will be my final post in this long thread. I will try to > summarize what I understand from the discussion as the main issuesa and what > needs to be addressed to make it easier for mappers and data consumers. > > I would also suggest that instead of filling the inboxes of each and everyone > on this tagging list, we create a smaller "working group" that can come up > with a concrete suggestion to solve the major issues. What do you think about > that? Who would like to work with such a proposal? > > Major issues, as I understand it: > How do we treat highway=path and highway=footway that has no additional tags? > Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we use) or a > way for non-specified/mixed use? That is, are we talking about the physical > characteristics of a way or its function? Btw, this would likely mean that 99 > % of path/footway/cycleway in Sweden should be path, if the latter > interpretation is to be used. > #1 & #2 makes it really difficult for data consumers, they have to depend on > (often non-existing) subtags. > Additional tags must be used to denote accessibility for pedestrians/cyclists > of ordinary ability, that is "this is NOT a hiking trail/wilderness trail!. > But which would these tags be? > Additional tags must also be used to tell !this IS a wilderness trail! (or > whatever term we use). > > Subtags > To specify the physical characteristics of a highway=path or highway=footway > we have a multitude of tags, with no particular recommendation about which > ones must or should be used (see #4 & #5 above): surface, smoothness, width, > trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and possibly incline. > > > An additional issue: > 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with mtb:scale) to > denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not the route). > But it's very geared towards alpine trails and there is not enough nuance in > the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), Australian > Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on sac_scale? > > > What needs to be done? > We have to rely on subtags... > We need to decide what subtags to be used to tell this is an accessible path > or this is a wilderness trail. > We need a way to better nuance hiking trails. > Documention needs to be much more clear and specific, in order for mappers > and data consumers to really know when different kinds of highway tags should > be used and what subtags must/should be used. > Editors need to be improved to encourage tagging that will make it easier for > data consumers. > Better default rendering of non-urban paths, to encourage the use of > mentioned subtags. > > Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interestet in > continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this > mailing list? > > /Daniel >
This seems to be an accurate summary of the discussion so far. As a hiker who both maps and renders maps for hiking, I am interested in getting this area of tagging improved and would be willing to exchange emails among a smaller group. Thank you for the summary! Tod
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
