On 1/12/20 10:36 am, Lukas Richert wrote:
I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in
my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but
it is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes
significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases
would be good. However, they should be lower priority than real paths.
- Lukas
On 30.11.20 23:06, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano
<zelonew...@gmail.com <mailto:zelonew...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things
related to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden.
Perhaps a combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what
we're describing?
Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.
--
I think these are called 'animal pads'? They are usefull for hiking
where no other path exists as they avoid further damage to vegetation
and damage to pants/gaiters/shoes. They do also lead hikers astray by
leading away from the path that they should use. Possibly highway=pad or
highway=animal_pad?
The tags 'note' and 'comment' are for mappers and not usually used by
renders, using the tag 'description' may be more helpful?
The tag 'access' should be used where access is restricted within OSM. I
don't think it is necessary to have signage on the ground to apply
access tags that are 'community standard' e.g. most home driveways in
Australia would be regarded as access=private and should be tagged as
such within OSM despite there being no sign on every home driveway.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
