On Friday 09 May 2008 09:33:47 Mike Collinson wrote:
> At 10:24 PM 8/05/2008, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> >Inge Wallin schrieb:
> >> Yes, that is indeed what it is. I haven't tracked it yet, but there is
> >> also a
> >> mountain bike track in that area. I suppose that should be tagged:
> >>
> >> highway=cycleway
> >> sport=mountainbike
> >>
> >> Except... these are not really ways at all, but narrow tracks through
> >> the woods that are not suitable for anything really, except
> >> mountainbiking.
> >
> >So go for highway=mtb_track, please. Do not expect old renderers or
> > routers to know about the sport=mountainbike restriction with a sudden.
>
> +1 to highway=mtb_track
>
> These are paths specifically designed for mountain bike use and fun, often
> deliberately not following the natural terrain an ordinary path would and
> often a circuit not taking you anywhere useful.
>
> I take the point that other paths are of varying suitability for road /
> hydrid / mountain bikes and that it is hard to objectively catagorise them
> ... but that is not relevant I think, highway=cycleway is fine for them
> (though a simple subjective classification as proposed in another thread
> does not seem a bad idea).
I think we have come far enough to be able to actually suggest the new highway
value 'mtb_track'. I'll add it to the suggested tags wiki page later today.
And while we're at it, should we have something similar for wander tracks?
They are also not exactly footpaths...
-Inge
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
