[Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the current
status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more useful
for forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are usually
more up-to-date, to be honest). But the default rendering doesn't
differentiate between a forest or mountain path and a paved, combined foot-
and cycleway in an urban environment.

Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering
is discussed elsewhere. But has there been any fruitful discussing on this
topic that will help users to tag these clearly extremely different kinds
of "paths" in a way that make them more useful for data consumers, as well
as easier to differentiate for renderers?

Sure, tags like surface, width, trail_visibility can be used. But in most
cases, highway=path is used with no additional tag. The JOSM presets for
foot- and cycleways use foot|bicycle=designated, but that doesn't
necessarily tell anything about the surface or size of the path, or even
its importance in terms of usage by pedestrians, hikers and cyclists.

When highway=path was introduced, forest trails were not widely mapped and
not the main consideration when introducing the tag as a way to deal with
cases when footway or cycleway could not be used.

I realize this topic has been discussed extensively over the years. But
now more than ever OSM is becoming increasingly important for hikers, trail
runners and MTB cyclists for whom a forest or mountain path is something
completely different to an urban foot- or cycleway.

/Daniel
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 21.05.2020 09:21, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car roads
> (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest). 

Which "other sources" are more up-to-date for car roads? Where I map, new roads 
are documented in
OSM from early planning over construction, and mappers compete who is the first 
to "open" the road
the same second the minister cuts the ribbon.

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

Yeah, I'm sure it can differ quite a lot from country to country. I live in
Sweden, where we have very good official sources for roads from
Lantmäteriet and Trafikverket, that some Swedish navigation services are
using. I also feel that Google Maps is very far ahead in terms of updating
main roads.

OSM depends on volunteers who have to know about the information of new or
changed roads and then use their time to add it to the map. Even though the
road network is available as open data, it's not easy to know what's
missing or incorrectly mapped. There are a few Swedish mappers who are
likely aware of such updates on a national level, but on a local level it
very much depends if there are mappers in that particular area. And even
then, a lot of details about routing restrictions, footways, cycleways etc.
may not make it to OSM, simply because there's not a structured way of
checking the OSM data vs official open data sources.

But the question wasn't about how good OSM is for car navigation, but about
differentiating different kinds of "paths".

In Sweden we also have the "freedom to roam" or "everyman's right", which
basically mean we can walk anywhere. There are lots of paths
everywhere that are not on any official map, but are added to OSM. Even in
other countries hiking paths are added in a way that they were not during
the years of the path controversy. And there are both renderers and
services offered for hiking that may be lacking data due to the difficulty
of differentiating different kinds of paths.

Until there's a better solution, I suppose this will be a never-ending
discussion. :D But nevertheless, it's a very important discussion, since
it's confusing both mappers and data consumers.

/Daniel


Den tors 21 maj 2020 kl 10:13 skrev Tom Pfeifer :

> On 21.05.2020 09:21, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> > OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car
> roads
> > (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest).
>
> Which "other sources" are more up-to-date for car roads? Where I map, new
> roads are documented in
> OSM from early planning over construction, and mappers compete who is the
> first to "open" the road
> the same second the minister cuts the ribbon.
>
> tom
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Ture Pålsson via Tagging]

21 maj 2020 kl. 09:21 skrev Daniel Westergren :
> 
> Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the current 
> status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for 
> forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are usually more 
> up-to-date, to be honest). But the default rendering doesn't differentiate 
> between a forest or mountain path and a paved, combined foot- and cycleway in 
> an urban environment.

Just as an example, from a data-consumer POV, here's my current rules for 
rendering highway=path (using the symbols from 
https://www.lantmateriet.se/globalassets/kartor-och-geografisk-information/kartor/tf_terrangkartan.pdf
 
;
 the Swedish equivalent of the OS Landranger maps). (You can check the results 
at http://lab3.turepalsson.se/map ).

1. If it's in a built-up area, and the scale is smaller than 1:12500, don't 
render it. It just clutters things too much. This rule should probably be moved 
a bit later to cater for those paths that are more like roads...

2. If it has trail_visibliity = "horrible", "poor" or "no", don't render it. 
Rationale: If I can't see the damned thing when I'm standing on it, it is 
useless for navigation.

3. If it has bicycle=designated and (no mtb_scale or mtb_scale < 1) and (no 
width or width > 2.5), there are some alternatives (rationale: people put 
bicycle=designated on just about everything, from normal cycle paths to 
advanced MTB tracks)

3.1 if it has a "hard" surface ("paved", "asphalt", "concrete"), render it as 
an "approach road, park road, cycle path" (thin solid line). Rationale: This is 
*probably* a bog standard Swedish cycleway. You could drive a car down it (but 
you'd have problems passing someone, and it's probably illegal, unless you are 
a service vehicle from the local council out to empty rubbish bins and change 
light bulbs).

3.2 If it doesn't have surface, or it has a surface which is not "ground", 
render it as a "tractor track" (thin dashed line). Rationale: No hard surface, 
but apparently intended for bikes in some way. The way people usually tag 
things, it is probably possible to drive tractor, or even a car, if you're 
careful, but given that we may not have an explicit width, there is a chance of 
error.

3.3 Otherwise, render it as a "foot path" (dotted line). If we got here, then 
it has surface=ground, so even if it's bicycle=designated (see 3), you don't 
want to commute to work on it in nice shoes and trousers.

4. If we got this far, render it as a "foot path" (dotted line). Whatever is 
is, it has failed all attempts at classing it as anything other than that.

What I suppose that I wish to say with all this is that in practice, I have 
seen highway=path used to mean anything from something that is not even visible 
on the ground, to something that is impossible to distinguish from a small road 
(I have seen "single track roads" in Scotland that were on par with some of the 
highway=path:s I have come across). To know which is is, you have to check 
several other tags, but you can't rely on any of them being there. OSM tagging 
is a complete mess of tags describing intention (but not very well -- is 
"bicycle=designated" a bicycle superhighway or an MTB track?), tags describing 
legal access (are bicycles required, or even allowed, to use this), and tags 
describing physical properties such as width and surface and as a data 
consumer, you have to be prepared for any combination of them. This is my 
ruleset for highway=path; many of the other highway=* are equally complicated.

I'm sorry this ended up so long and unfocused. Map renderer's frustration, I 
suppose...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 04:34 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 20/5/20 10:49 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal.
>>
>> I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK
>> (but oif unwanted - feel free to revert)
>>
>> At least for me it is useful illustration of what the proposal is about
>> and clearly demonstrate that it actually ahpepns
>> (as such complicated routes are highly unusual in my region)
>>
>
> Hummm...
>
>
> The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main route 
> is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it.
>
> Why is one excluded where the other is not? Is that is going to be difficult 
> to explain in a simple way?
>
Black trail in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Dead_end_hiking_route.png is
a completely separate trail.

If it would be signed as a part of green trail, then it ways would get 
"excursion" roie.
But as it is a separate one its ways are having either blank or "main" role.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Yves]

Yeah, I've seen the pattern of route=piste for ways, I guess it is a case of 
newbies over-gardening.
Don't specifically exclude route=piste from your proposal: my point was to 
completely omit 'other recreational routes' if you don't master them to avoid 
unnecessary discussion.
When the proposal is accepted, you can have a look at taginfo and reach out to 
those route=* wiki page to inform that the new accepted proposal may be of 
interest. 

Le 20 mai 2020 18:27:24 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson  a écrit 
:
>Thanks, I see that route=piste was approved and has its own role
>definition. Strangely enough, the tag is applied more often to ways
>then to
>relations, that does not seem to fit in the tag definition.
>
>I meant the roles proposal to be generic, but I'll include the
>route=piste
>relation as an exception.  Any other exceptions?
>
>Peter Elderson
>
>
>Op wo 20 mei 2020 om 17:37 schreef Yves :
>
>> "Applies to
>>
>> All  and  part of a relation tagged
>> withtype=route and route=hiking or route=foot or route=bicycle or any
>other
>> recreational route type."
>>
>> I was thinking of route=piste, used for cross-country skiing or
>> snowshoeing. I'd better leave out this part unless discussed in the
>context
>> of other recreational routes. I don't see in the current proposal any
>> showstopper, but who knows?
>> Once accepted, it will be easy enough to extend to other route=*
>relations
>> as fit.
>> Yves
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 20 mai 2020 13:33:26 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson
> a
>> écrit :
>>>
>>> Please review and comment on this proposal:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
>>>
>>>
>>> Definition: specification of role values for members of a
>recreational
>>> route relation
>>>
>>> The status has changed to proposed as of today
>>>
>>> Comments can be placed on the talk page and/or here.  Please note
>that
>>> this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and
>documented.
>>>
>>> Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>>>
>>> Best, Peter Elderson
>>>
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 09:21 by wes...@gmail.com:

> OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car roads 
> (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest). 
>
Not really relevant and depends on a location.

> But the default rendering doesn't differentiate between a forest or mountain 
> path and a paved, combined foot- and cycleway in an urban environment.
>
Default rendering is offtopic here. BTW it distinguishes between paved and 
unpaved paths.
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/ is a better place for 
discussing it
(and yes, path rendering is substandard with issues opened and waiting for a 
better code)
 

> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering is 
> discussed elsewhere.
>
Then why you mention it?

>  But has there been any fruitful discussing on this topic that will help 
> users to tag these clearly extremely different kinds of "paths" in a way that 
> make them more useful for data consumers, as well as easier to differentiate 
> for renderers?
>
There was plenty of discussion, if someone is interested then improving and 
expanding
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
is likely a good idea.

I just added there link to an excellent post by Ture Pålsson.

> Sure, tags like surface, width, trail_visibility can be used. But in most 
> cases, highway=path is used with no additional tag.
>
Or using StreetComplete Android app in your area, among included quests there 
is one asking about surface for paths where it is missing (if you are 
interested in just this,
you can change quest order in settings)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 21.05.20 10:33, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote:
> What I suppose that I wish to say with all this is that in practice, I
> have seen highway=path used to mean anything from something that is not
> even visible on the ground,

An interesting side thread to this is not about the visibility but about
the accessibility - at DWG we've recently received a plea from a member
of a volunteer mountain rescue team to remove the highway=path attribute
from a dangerous approach to a mountain that was only suitable for
experienced mountaineers with appropriate gear. The way *did* have a
"sac_scale" to indicate difficult alpine hiking but apparently that was
not good enough, or too many clients were just ignoring that (in a post
on talk-gb recently, Andy Allan wrote: "I've seen maps from a
multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering anything
with a highway tag the same as their most minor road style"). It is not
proven that the many people having required rescue services on that path
came there because of OSM - could be any other source too - but this is
one aspect of the general "path" problem.

If we map "highway=path" + "danger=you will be shot" and then someone
gets shot because their Android app only looked at highway=path, can we
*really* sit back and say "their fault, we don't map for the Android app"?

Sorry if this is somewhere on the Wiki, I love the Wiki for
documentation but I hate Wiki discussions with all my heart and cannot
bring myself to read them, much less participate in them.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 11:31 by frede...@remote.org:

> If we map "highway=path" + "danger=you will be shot" and then someone
> gets shot because their Android app only looked at highway=path, can we
> *really* sit back and say "their fault, we don't map for the Android app"?
>
In that case access=no really should be also added.

Adding "highway=path" + "danger=you will be shot" without "access=no"
is a really poor idea.

Routing someone over "access=no" is a really dumb idea.

Though displaying "access=no" in a clear way is sadly tricky :(

> Sorry if this is somewhere on the Wiki, I love the Wiki for
> documentation but I hate Wiki discussions with all my heart and cannot
> bring myself to read them, much less participate in them.
>
You are doing plenty of other useful things :)

BWT, yesterday I added to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno

"This tag is a proper method to mark existing objects such as path as 
existing but illegal to use. It includes illegal railway crossings, illegal 
paths through nature reserves etc. Such objects can be mapped but 
should be tagged as illegal to use by adding access=no."

+ photo of an illegal footway through rails
(shown currently below infobox) with description

"Illegal railway crossing (with "illegal railway crossing, 
2 people died here and 2 were injured" sign). 

Such highway=footway needs access=no to make clear 
that it should not be used, for example, in routing."
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 11:42 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> Routing someone over "access=no" is a really dumb idea.
>
Obviously,  except cases of overriding tags like foot=yes,

Similarly anyone creating
highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes"
should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or other less harmful 
activity.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

>
> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering
> is discussed elsewhere.
>
> Then why you mention it?
>

I was trying to give a context. Sorry if it's not relevant everywhere. My
point is that the usage of highway=path for forest and mountain trails has
increased and more and more data consumers are using OSM data for that
purpose. But the difficulties that @Ture Pålsson very well described is a
reason as good as any to discuss better ways of tagging "paths".

Even if we should not tag for the renderer, we should always make the data
easy to consume. Otherwise the data is quite meaningless. And highway=path
definitely isn't easy to consume, which was very well pointed out already
6.5 years ago  by
Richard Fairhurst of cycle.travel and also at
https://www.cyclestreets.net/help/journey/osmconversion/ ("Horridly complex
tag, everyone uses it differently.").


There was plenty of discussion, if someone is interested then improving and
> expanding
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
> is likely a good idea.
>

Like Frederik mentioned, the wiki is a terribly difficult place for
discussions. In lack of better channels, this tagging mailing list is the
best forum I've found for these discussions, before putting conclusions
(and possibly opposing views) in the wiki.



> Or using StreetComplete Android app in your area, among included quests
> there
> is one asking about surface for paths where it is missing (if you are
> interested in just this,
> you can change quest order in settings)
>

Yeah, StreetComplete is great! I've been thinking of suggesting to add
other important tags for paths/tracks as well, like trail visibility and
mtb:scale. But I haven't had the time to understand how that process is
done. :) And I can see at least smoothness has been discussed
.

I really like the image examples in StreetComplete, which makes tagging
existing ways actually much easier than in an editor like iD or JOSM. But
again, that's a sidetrack to the topic of this thread.

/Daniel
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

>
> An interesting side thread to this is not about the visibility but about
> the accessibility - at DWG we've recently received a plea from a member
> of a volunteer mountain rescue team to remove the highway=path attribute
> from a dangerous approach to a mountain that was only suitable for
> experienced mountaineers with appropriate gear.
>

Yeah, another example of the problem with a wide tag like highway=path, at
the other extreme end. But where to draw the line?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 13:18 by wes...@gmail.com:

>>> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering 
>>> is discussed elsewhere.
>>>
>> Then why you mention it?
>>
>
> I was trying to give a context. Sorry if it's not relevant everywhere. My 
> point is that the usage of highway=path for forest and mountain trails has 
> increased and more and more data consumers are using OSM data for that 
> purpose. But the difficulties that @Ture Pålsson very well described is a 
> reason as good as any to discuss better ways of tagging "paths".
>
> Even if we should not tag for the renderer, we should always make the data 
> easy to consume. Otherwise the data is quite meaningless. And highway=path 
> definitely isn't easy to consume, which was > very well pointed out already 
> 6.5 years ago >  by 
> Richard Fairhurst of > cycle.travel >  and also at > 
> https://www.cyclestreets.net/help/journey/osmconversion/>  ("Horridly complex 
> tag, everyone uses it differently.").
>
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 - thanks, I remembered 
it but
failed to track it down. I now added it to the wiki to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath#Data_consumers


>> There was plenty of discussion, if someone is interested then improving and 
>> expanding
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
>> is likely a good idea.
>>
>
> Like Frederik mentioned, the wiki is a terribly difficult place for 
> discussions. In lack of better channels, this tagging mailing list is the 
> best forum I've found for these discussions, before putting conclusions (and 
> possibly opposing views) in the wiki.
>
I feel that there was plenty of discussion, just nobody bothered to write 
summary of them anywhere.

>  
>
>> Or using StreetComplete Android app in your area, among included quests 
>> there 
>> is one asking about surface for paths where it is missing (if you are 
>> interested in just this,
>> you can change quest order in settings)
>>
>
> Yeah, StreetComplete is great! I've been thinking of suggesting to add other 
> important tags for paths/tracks as well, like trail visibility and mtb:scale. 
> But I haven't had the time to understand how that process is done. :)
>
See 
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/wiki/Adding-new-Quests-to-StreetComplete
and 
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/new?template=quest-suggestion.md
(second one available via "new issue" button at GH)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main
>> route is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it.
>>
>> Why is one excluded where the other is not? Is that is going to be
>> difficult to explain in a simple way?
>
> It should depend if it's signposted as part of the route or not, since this 
> tagging only applies to signposted routes. If there is an excursion or 
> alternative route that isn't signposted as part of the route then it 
> shouldn't be included in the relation.

It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.

And it's still possible to waymark a side trail as _associated_ with
the main route. The Appalachian Trail, for instance, is marked with a
2x6 inch vertical white bar. Side trails that 'belong' to it are
marked wtih the same 2x6 inch vertical bar, only in blue. The 'belongs
to' association is a judgment call. I know of only one maintaining
club in my broad area that publishes a list, and that's for their
quirky 'hiked the Long Path from side to side' award:
https://www.greenmountainclub.org/the-long-trail/side-to-side/

The excursion may be marked generically, but still be understood to
'belong to' the trail that it leaves. On many preserves around here
(which use a more sophisticated waymarking system than the simple
paint blazes), side trails to campsites and latrines are marked with
little (~10 cm) marker disks bearing the appropriate icon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/10282365273

Given the statement of purpose, the locals will know what to do, and
the non-locals will argue here on the tagging list about whether a
'properly' tagged object must follow their cultural assumptions.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 17:25, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the
> current status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more
> useful for forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are
> usually more up-to-date, to be honest). But the default rendering doesn't
> differentiate between a forest or mountain path and a paved, combined foot-
> and cycleway in an urban environment.
>

There are plenty of apps/maps out there which do differentiate this, so
that's not a tagging issue.


> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering
> is discussed elsewhere. But has there been any fruitful discussing on this
> topic that will help users to tag these clearly extremely different kinds
> of "paths" in a way that make them more useful for data consumers, as well
> as easier to differentiate for renderers?
>
> Sure, tags like surface, width, trail_visibility can be used. But in most
> cases, highway=path is used with no additional tag. The JOSM presets for
> foot- and cycleways use foot|bicycle=designated, but that doesn't
> necessarily tell anything about the surface or size of the path, or even
> its importance in terms of usage by pedestrians, hikers and cyclists.
>

Those are very useful tags, plus smoothness and sac_scale.

You can also use foot=designated to indicated its signposted for walking or
foot=yes to indicate you are allowed to walk but not signed for walkers.

There are tags for ladders, rungs, ropes which are useful so less able
people can be informed if a trail features these obstacles.

The lifecycle prefix is good for tagging abandoned paths that have
significant regrowth and authorities have closed off and trying to
regenerate.

You're right a highway=path without any other tags covers a wide range of
possibilities, that's why it's great if you can add other tags.


> When highway=path was introduced, forest trails were not widely mapped and
> not the main consideration when introducing the tag as a way to deal with
> cases when footway or cycleway could not be used.
>

The highway value describes what the path was built for, the other tags
mentioned tell you a lot more about the suitability of it.


> I realize this topic has been discussed extensively over the years. But
> now more than ever OSM is becoming increasingly important for hikers, trail
> runners and MTB cyclists for whom a forest or mountain path is something
> completely different to an urban foot- or cycleway.
>

If you have any material suggestions, I'd be very keen to hear.

Disclaimer: I build a website and map for hiking using OSM (
beyondtracks.com/map) data and yes I do take into account sac_scale (path
is red when it's technical), trail visibility (sparser dot when the trail
is less visible), ladders, ropes and rungs.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
> some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
> the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.
>
Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.

Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
a trail?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/05/2020 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:



Similarly anyone creating
highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes"
should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or other less 
harmful activity.


While "danger" isn't a much used tag (and I'm sure wasn't a serious 
suggestion here - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/danger#values 
), sometimes "foot=yes" is correct and other tags need to be taken into 
account.  I've used the area around 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431056034 as an example of that 
before.  Here "foot=yes" is correct - there is a legal right of access.  
"sac_scale =demanding_alpine_hiking" also makes sense here I think.


I take Frederik's reference to Andy Allan's point about "a 
multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering anything 
with a highway tag the same as their most minor road style" but frankly 
there's simply no solution to that - presumably "highway=dangerouspath" 
(to make up a nonsensical value) or 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=via%20ferrata would still 
get shown as a "road".


Map styles need to be clear about what they're showing and what they're 
not showing and people using maps need to be able to read maps so that 
they understand what they're being told.  This isn't really a tagging 
issue, unless OSM mappers aren't using appropriate other tags when they 
should (sac_scale, trail_visibility, surface, etc.)


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

To my understanding, signposting is one way of waymarking. I've now
changed the text to "signposted or otherwise waymarked". Hope that's
English? I checked the dictionary for the terms, they are correct, I think,
but it didn't mention what people actually call it around the globe.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 21 mei 2020 om 14:49 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
>
>
> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
>
> It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
> some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
> the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.
>
> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>
> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
> a trail?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:11 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'.
>
> Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example
'motor_vehicle=private, comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for
maintenance only'
While it is not (yet) tagged that way, in fact  motor vehicles are not
allowed, except for official park vehicles.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.

Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.


My 2p from England:

I suspect it'd vary around the world but I'd certainly say "that trail 
is signposted" if all there was was a characteristic paint blaze that 
"everyone recognises" as matching a particular trail.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Volker Schmidt]

This wikipedia "Trail blazing" 
article (which takes trailblazed and wayarked as meaning the same thing),
has a nice picture collection of way markings.

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:22, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>
>
> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
>
> It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
> some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
> the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.
>
> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>
> My 2p from England:
>
> I suspect it'd vary around the world but I'd certainly say "that trail is
> signposted" if all there was was a characteristic paint blaze that
> "everyone recognises" as matching a particular trail.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
>
> It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
> some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
> the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.
>
> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>
> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
> a trail?
>

To me all those things tell me that someone else uses this track for
walking and I'm not too lost and reassures that I'm not just bush bashing
or following an animal trail.

Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the
trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact
route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route.

Though there was another thread recently about what constituents a route vs
just a named path..
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Adam Franco]

For those who missed it, a related discussion was just had on this list
about differentiating mountain-biking trails from cycleways.
See the resulting proposal for path=mtb
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb and
threads from April in Tagging:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-April/051864.html

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:51 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

>
> On 21/05/2020 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>
> Similarly anyone creating
> highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes"
> should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or other less
> harmful activity.
>
> While "danger" isn't a much used tag (and I'm sure wasn't a serious
> suggestion here - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/danger#values ),
> sometimes "foot=yes" is correct and other tags need to be taken into
> account.  I've used the area around
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431056034 as an example of that
> before.  Here "foot=yes" is correct - there is a legal right of access.  "
> sac_scale
> =demanding_alpine_hiking"
> also makes sense here I think.
>
> I take Frederik's reference to Andy Allan's point about "a
> multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering anything with
> a highway tag the same as their most minor road style" but frankly there's
> simply no solution to that - presumably "highway=dangerouspath" (to make up
> a nonsensical value) or
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=via%20ferrata would still
> get shown as a "road".
>
> Map styles need to be clear about what they're showing and what they're
> not showing and people using maps need to be able to read maps so that they
> understand what they're being told.  This isn't really a tagging issue,
> unless OSM mappers aren't using appropriate other tags when they should
> (sac_scale, trail_visibility, surface, etc.)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 16:00 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by >> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
>>> some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
>>> the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.
>>>
>> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
>> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
>> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
>> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>>
>> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
>> a trail?
>>
>
> To me all those things tell me that someone else uses this track for walking 
> and I'm not too lost and reassures that I'm not just bush bashing or 
> following an animal trail.
>
> Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the 
> trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact 
> route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route.
>
In Poland there is a standard method for hiking at least some types of 
recreational routes.

For example
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlak_turystyczny#/media/Plik:CzerwonySzlakTurystyczny.jpg
is certainly marking hiking walking route (red bar within white bars means that 
it is
a red hiking trail).

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlak_turystyczny#/media/Plik:Tourist_trails_pl01.jpg
is marking (from top) skiing route, red horse trail (within orange bars), and 
three hiking
walking routes (within white bars) - blue route, yellow route and black route.

Additional information boards, signs, guideposts, cairns, signs, wooden poles 
etc
may be present but such markings as on photos 
are completely sufficient to mark it as a recreational route.


> Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the 
> trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact 
> route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route.
>
Except rare cases of imports you need to anyway travel entire route to map it 
in OSM.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

Is it ok for you to leave that discussion out of this proposal? Let's say:
if it is decided that there is a route with additional sections verifiably
belonging to the route, this role-set can be used in the route relation to
indicate the purpose of the special sections.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 21 mei 2020 om 16:03 schreef Andrew Harvey :

>
>
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
>>
>> It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
>> some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
>> the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.
>>
>> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
>> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
>> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
>> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>>
>> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
>> a trail?
>>
>
> To me all those things tell me that someone else uses this track for
> walking and I'm not too lost and reassures that I'm not just bush bashing
> or following an animal trail.
>
> Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the
> trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact
> route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route.
>
> Though there was another thread recently about what constituents a route
> vs just a named path..
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Yes, the requirements are the same.

The important part is that this proposal is not changing what can be included 
in the route relation,
and sections that are not part of a route still cannot be included in it.

May 21, 2020, 16:38 by pelder...@gmail.com:

> Is it ok for you to leave that discussion out of this proposal? Let's say: if 
> it is decided that there is a route with additional sections verifiably 
> belonging to the route, this role-set can be used in the route relation to 
> indicate the purpose of the special sections. 
>
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op do 21 mei 2020 om 16:03 schreef Andrew Harvey <> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 
> >:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> 
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by >>> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>>> :
>>>
 It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted;
 some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in
 the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line.

>>> Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
>>> guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
>>> information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
>>> wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.
>>>
>>> Is "signposted" referring to only some specific methods of marking
>>> a trail?
>>>
>>
>> To me all those things tell me that someone else uses this track for walking 
>> and I'm not too lost and reassures that I'm not just bush bashing or 
>> following an animal trail.
>>
>> Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the 
>> trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact 
>> route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route.
>>
>> Though there was another thread recently about what constituents a route vs 
>> just a named path..
>> ___
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[brad]

Perhaps highway=service?

I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that 
common usage, or the wiki says this either.


/"This //tag //represents 
//*roads for mostly agricultural use*//, //*forest tracks*//etc.; often 
unpaved (unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are 
suitable for //two//-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "

/

I think the "etc" could mean a lot of things, such as mining roads, fire 
roads, emergency access roads, etc /

/

/"If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be 
tagged as //highway 
=path 
//."/


and
/"Consider //highway 
=path 
//for ways so 
narrow that they can only accommodate pedestrians, equestrians, 
bicyclists, and motorcycles without sidecars."


and/

"highway =track 
 - for roads 
for agricultural use, gravel roads in the forest etc."


These quotes are from:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

On 5/21/20 7:06 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:


On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:11 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:

>
> There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'.
>
> Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example 
'motor_vehicle=private, comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for 
maintenance only'
While it is not (yet) tagged that way, in fact  motor vehicles are not 
allowed, except for official park vehicles.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Volker Schmidt]

Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the
> trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact
> route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route.
>
> A series of trail blazes or way marks tells me that I most likely on a
trail that someone has marked as a  hiking trail. If I persist and follow
the trail, finding more and more of these blazes I will, in most case
encounter a signpost  or guidepost that tells me more about the trail
(name, ref, destination, ...)
This leads me to what I really wanted to say:
Trail route relations (and cycling route relations) could or should (?)
include the guideposts, and for that purpose we need a role for these
nodes: role=guidepost
The only mention in the wiki is this one:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Wandern#In_die_Relation_aufnehmen

In Italy the Club Alpino Italiano has recently started a collaboration with
the OSM community (under the "roof" of the Italian Wikimedia association)
that aims at transferring the 50k km trail network of the Club into OSM.
Part of this is the use of hiking relations and the guideposts will be
inserted in the hiking route relations. Details are documented on the wiki
page CAI  (in Italian).

The new roles in the proposal do not bother me too much. I am not against
them, but I do not see any great benefit in having them. As an end.user, I
regularly plan (cycling) tours using various route planning tools (who
typically give preference to cycling routes), but in that context it does
not matter what role a particular part of relation has, the only important
thing is whether a way is part of a route or not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. May 2020, at 17:50, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> This leads me to what I really wanted to say:
> Trail route relations (and cycling route relations) could or should (?) 
> include the guideposts, and for that purpose we need a role for these nodes: 
> role=guidepost


I agree that it is useful to add them, adding a role seems optional as long as 
the tagging makes it clear that these are guideposts and trail marks (the 
latter are a bit more disputed, but I’d not reject them, they are similar to 
guideposts).

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

Nodes with roles in the route relation deserve another proposal to make it
"official". The CAI-project sounds promising, I will look into it once this
business is done! My wife is learning Italian, so maybe she can even
translate the text (into Dutch, for our post-corona hiking and biking
season?) :)
For the moment, I think it has no impact on this proposal.

I know that from a routing perspective, membership of the route relation
(any route relation for the transport mode) counts the most. Hikers tend to
have a different point of view, where the predefined named route and its
variants are more important. But again, that's a different discussion.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 21 mei 2020 om 17:50 schreef Volker Schmidt :

>
>
>
> Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the
>> trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact
>> route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route.
>>
>> A series of trail blazes or way marks tells me that I most likely on a
> trail that someone has marked as a  hiking trail. If I persist and follow
> the trail, finding more and more of these blazes I will, in most case
> encounter a signpost  or guidepost that tells me more about the trail
> (name, ref, destination, ...)
> This leads me to what I really wanted to say:
> Trail route relations (and cycling route relations) could or should (?)
> include the guideposts, and for that purpose we need a role for these
> nodes: role=guidepost
> The only mention in the wiki is this one:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Wandern#In_die_Relation_aufnehmen
>
> In Italy the Club Alpino Italiano has recently started a collaboration
> with the OSM community (under the "roof" of the Italian Wikimedia
> association) that aims at transferring the 50k km trail network of the Club
> into OSM. Part of this is the use of hiking relations and the guideposts
> will be inserted in the hiking route relations. Details are documented on
> the wiki page CAI  (in Italian).
>
> The new roles in the proposal do not bother me too much. I am not against
> them, but I do not see any great benefit in having them. As an end.user, I
> regularly plan (cycling) tours using various route planning tools (who
> typically give preference to cycling routes), but in that context it does
> not matter what role a particular part of relation has, the only important
> thing is whether a way is part of a route or not.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:24 AM brad  wrote:
>
> I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that
common usage, or the wiki says this either.
It is not really "2 track" as its surface is uniformly graded and covered
with gravel from side to side (there are not separate ruts for the wheels
on each side of a four-wheeled vehicle).  Keep in mind that the imagery
currently available to OSM is all outdated in regards to this feature as it
was just constructed over the last couple of months.  I only know its
physical characteristics because I biked and ran it soon after it was open
to the public.

>
> "This tag represents roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks
etc.; often unpaved (unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that
are suitable for two-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "
>
> I think the "etc" could mean a lot of things, such as mining roads, fire
roads, emergency access roads, etc
Well, it is not for any of these purposes, it is solely for recreational
use. We have a lot of paths, footways, and cycleways around here, paved and
unpaved, which are about the same width (~2.5m), e.g. [0]

>
> "If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be
tagged as highway=path."
That does not necessarily imply that "if the way is wide enough for a
two-track vehicle, it should be tagged as highway=track." The quote only
talks about changing tracks to paths, not paths to tracks.


> "highway=track - for roads for agricultural use, gravel roads in the
forest etc."
Again, it is not for agricultural use, and it is not in the forest, it is
in a city owned "natural area" (which isn't forested).

So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some
similar value)?

Mike

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48573535 - width is not tagged, but
first hand observation and available imagery shows this "cycleway" is about
3 meters wide.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Mario Frasca]

Hello everybody.

thank you Claire for alerting the Telegram group 'OSM Africa Tagging' 
about your message on this list!


I forwarded your invitation to the groups América Central, LatAm, 
Panamá, and Colombia.


yesterday we had a look at the typologies that exist from an official 
point of view here in Panamá, and at the lower end of the range there's 
indeed facilities that don't match the amenity=[clinic|doctors] nor any 
healthcare values.


the three low-range facilities are called: "Puesto de Salud", "Subcentro 
de Salud", and "Centro de Promoción de Salud".  I've never seen one of 
them, personally speaking, I'm just interpreting the information at 
http://www.minsa.gob.pa/cartera-salud/cartera-de-servicio-por-nivel-de-atencion 
and asking local people for help understanding what I'm reading.


The "centro de promoción" does not offer any other support but by 
education and communication.  allegedly: "Organización comunitaria, 
Participación Social, Educación y comunicación para la Salud."  
supposing they do exist and they do provide the service, I would not 
know how to tag these.


Subcentros and Puestos are for remote areas reachable only with 
difficulty in the dry season.  there's quite a few communities here 
which can only be reached by boat via rivers, possibly on foot after 
leaving the boat.  these Puestos and Subcentros have respectively a 
'ayudante o asistente' de salud, and a 'Auxiliar de Enfermería (Técnico) 
o Enfermera permanente'.  I'm not sure, but to me an 'ayudante' sounds 
like someone from the community having received some minimal training, 
while the 'Técnico/Auxiliar' is a graduate professional.  these 
locations are periodically visited from the Centro from which they 
depend.  "many" of these places (la gran mayoría de los casos) only 
exist on paper, and are abandoned, or only used as storage for goods 
unrelated to healthcare.  (when I asked at the local Centro de Salud, 
the doctor made a call to the administration to check his knowledge, and 
confirm which of the dependencies were in function.  I got the idea it's 
quite volatile information.)


summarizing, to represent the lower end of the Panamanian healthcare 
facilities, apart from the mentioned proposed new categories: 
healthcare=nurses (technicians/engineers), and healthcare=community_* 
(stagists/capacitated/?), we als need to tag the periodicity of the 
extra presence, and the prevention/education/information function.


I hope we will have an extended definition: we can use it here,

thanks again.

Mario

On 19/05/2020 10:14, claire.halleux at hotosm.org (Claire Halleux) wrote:

Hello,

This message follows previous discussions that took place in Africa Tagging
Telegram group and on talk-cd list related to (missing) tags for mapping
rural healthcare facilities.

A dispensary ("dispensaire" or "poste de santé" per DRC local names)
matches the following definition extracted from Wikipedia: "a dispensary is
a small outpatient health facility, usually managed by a registered nurse.
It provides the most basic primary healthcare services to rural
communities, e.g. childhood immunization, family planning, wound dressing
and management of common ailments like colds, diarrhea and simple malaria.
The nurses report to the nursing officer at the health center, where they
refer patients with complicated diseases".

In the DRC, the mapping of dispensaries has been mainly using
health_facility:type=dispensary tag from abandoned proposal healthcare 2.0
for the last 2 years. Most of the involved mappers would now like to switch
towards a more consistent tagging scheme (that would hopefully also be
rendered on carto at some point).
What are your thoughts about adding the value "dispensary" in the wiki to
the healthcare key to map these places?

Additionally, despite dispensaries, a number of rural areas are still out
of reach of any regular healthcare provider. Therefore the Ministry of
Public Health in the DRC also recognized and organized community healthcare
provided by trained volunteers from the communities (these places are
called "sites de soins communautaires"). These places have a particular
focus on deadly diseases affecting children, they include prevention,
health promotion and curative activities. Since these don't even have a
single nurse as staff, I would like to propose a separate value such as
healthcare=community_care or community_care_site.

Regards,
Claire
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Claire Halleux]

 Thanks again for the suggestions.

healthcare=community_health_worker seems a good value choice, as it is
defined on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_health_worker.
community_health_service is more likely to refer to services provided to
the community involving doctors and nurses, which isn't the case in the
cases currently discussed, see
https://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/2015/07/what-are-community-health-services

For the health posts, healthcare=nurse is better than using nursing. Using
the singular form seems to me more consistent with the other existing
values of healthcare.

>
> nurse - may mean "nurse office in school", "nurse office in hospital" and
> the intended meaning
>
> @Mateusz, I didn't get if you were suggesting to avoid this value or not.

By the way, I realized this morning that the value health_post was
documented last month on the wiki for the amenity key, while absent from
the main amenity page.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhealth_post. Has anyone
insights or more context about this tag?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The tag amenity=health_post has been mainly used in Nepal, with some use in
Guinea (West Africa) and northern Ethiopia:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/UeI

Those in Guinea are usually named "Poste de santé de " - so perhaps
they are similar to the Poste de Santé in your area?
E.g. nodes 4218024825 ,
4218025230 , and 4218028928


There is an online article about the Health Post system in Ethiopia:
http://www.hhpronline.org/articles/2016/12/17/the-health-extension-program-of-ethiopia

"More than 38,000 government-salaried female Health Extension Workers
(HEWs) are deployed in the country. 3 Two HEWs are assigned to one health
post to serve a population ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 in a village
“kebele”. HEWs provide key health services through fixed and outreach
bases. They spend half of their working time conducting home visits and
outreach activities and the remaining half at their health post providing
basic curative, promotive and preventive services."

Example: node 977989612 

In Nepal, the amenity=health_post is used for "Health Post" and "Sub-Health
Post" facilities. This article says:

"health assitant, axulliary health worker, assistant nurse midwife and
maternal-child health worker are designated to work in PHC-C, HP [Health
Post] or SHP [Sub-Health Post] in rural areas but to date there are
insufficinet trained health workers available."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723647/pdf/12199_2008_Article_BF02897302.pdf
-
older article

https://www.advancingpartners.org/resources/technical-briefs/nepal-community-based-health-system-model
- more recent:
"community-based health services provided by the three cadres of
community-level service providers (CLSPs): female community health
volunteers (FCHVs), auxiliary nurse midwives (ANWs) and auxiliary health
workers (AHWs).2 Until recently, two other cadres—village health workers
(VHWs) and maternal and child health workers (MCHWs)—operated in Nepal, but
were upgraded to AHWs and ANMs. "

So these health posts are not staffed by nurses or doctors, they might have
an "auxiliary nurse midwife" or "auxiliary health worker"

Comparing the 3 countries, all are health facilities at the village or
neighborhood level which provide health care via workers who do not have as
much formal training. I would agree that most of these workers might be
called "community health workers" as a general term, though each country
uses somewhat different terminology.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:00 PM Claire Halleux 
wrote:

> Thanks again for the suggestions.
>
> healthcare=community_health_worker seems a good value choice, as it is
> defined on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_health_worker.
> community_health_service is more likely to refer to services provided to
> the community involving doctors and nurses, which isn't the case in the
> cases currently discussed, see
> https://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/2015/07/what-are-community-health-services
>
> For the health posts, healthcare=nurse is better than using nursing. Using
> the singular form seems to me more consistent with the other existing
> values of healthcare.
>
>>
>> nurse - may mean "nurse office in school", "nurse office in hospital" and
>> the intended meaning
>>
>> @Mateusz, I didn't get if you were suggesting to avoid this value or not.
>
> By the way, I realized this morning that the value health_post was
> documented last month on the wiki for the amenity key, while absent from
> the main amenity page.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhealth_post. Has anyone
> insights or more context about this tag?
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com:

> So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some 
> similar value)?
>
Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve, or 
cycleway
on a slope may be noticeably larger.

There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a 
pedestrian road,
with varied opinions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for COVID Vouchers

[Rossella Di Bari]

Hi! I am late, sorry.

@Martin: you're right, i know the difference between goods and services.
I've red the page and that sentence you've quoted ("These might include..."
so it not exlude others... but maybe just in services cathegory) let me go
on hoping in a larger use of that tag.

@Francesco&Damian: sorry for services instead of service. According to the
restrictions of use the voucher within the municipality, it is the same
where i'm from and I accept that it also applies to other municipality
because each of them has chosen specific arrangements, even making use of
external provision of services.
Also, asking to some employees from my municipality, it seems that this
specific voucher was one-off measure, mainly addressed to those workers
obliged to close their activity because of health emergency. Now, with
Phase2 incoming, the economy growth is expected to resume, slowly.
With this background, it is difficult to foresee if this tag we would set
up will have long life.

Ciao

Il giorno mar 19 mag 2020 alle ore 20:49 Damjan Gerl  ha
scritto:

> Francesco Ansanelli je 19.5.2020 ob 17:33 napisal:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Il giorno mar 19 mag 2020 alle ore 16:57 Martin Koppenhoefer
> > mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:
> >
> > Am Di., 19. Mai 2020 um 14:55 Uhr schrieb Rossella Di Bari
> > mailto:dbrosse...@gmail.com>>:
> >
> > Hi! I am Rossella, an italian neo-mapper, nice to meet you :)
> > In Talk-It [1] we get into a debate on vouchers, provided by
> > the Government, for the purchase of essential goods, to
> > support the families in need in COVID time.
> > The vouchers are similar to SNAP or food stamps, they can also
> > be used to purchase essential supplies like medicines (not
> > just for food) and entitle to a certain percentage discount.
> >
> >
> >
> > right
> >
> > I am posting here because it came forward the need to tag
> > supermarkets and pharmacies that accept the COVID vouchers as
> > a payment method and it's time for a broad debate.
> > Searching on Taginfo [2], i have found
> > payment:service_vouchers:covid19=yes used only 5 times and it
> > seems to be the most suitable tag because these specific
> vouchers:
> >
> >   * are a payment method;
> >   * (in my opinion) can be considered a service_voucher as "a
> > financial instrument which allows a public authority to
> > target social services at those it deems in need" [3];
> >
> >
> >
> > if you read along the wikipedia page you have quoted, it says
> > about the services "These might include for example home care
> > , household repairs,
> > ironing , or bicycle
> >  hire and repair."
> >
> > "Food" you buy in a supermarket is not a service, neither
> > pharmaceuticals are. It would be a service to deliver your
> > purchase at your home, but the things you buy can not be regarded
> > a "service", and the payment:service_voucher tag (IMHO) does not
> > apply to these vouchers you want to map the acceptance of.
> >
> >
> > I have to partially agree with Martin, even if the "meal vouchers"
> > definition is too strict for the case in subject. How about a simple:
> > "payment:voucher:covid19=yes"
> >
> > As I've already noted the tag: payment:service_vouchers:covid19=yes
> > should be written without the extra "s":
> > payment:service_voucher:covid19=yes
> > and I could live with it, if we fix them all (5).
>
> No problem to fix this 5 tags (I'm the author of this 5 used tags) when
> the tag will be defined.
>
> >
> > Are you sure there is a distinct category of objects that accept
> > "buoni spesa" for COVID, that is not identitcal with the list of
> > those objects that accept payment with "reddito di cittadinanza"
> > (more general social care, not related to COVID)? I think I have
> > read they are the same (but it could eventually depend on the
> > region). If there are no differences, we could map the acceptance
> > of food vouchers for COVID the same as we map acceptance of
> > reddito di cittadinanza (i.e. the latter would imply the former
> > and would not require explicit mapping).
> >
> >
> > First of all, I think COVID-19 mapping should be suffixed by
> > ":covid19" and should never be assumed by default even if similar
> > services are given, then please also mind that "reddito di
> > cittadinanza" is AFAICT a debit Mastercard:
> >
> https://confcommerciogorizia.it/2019/06/14/reddito-di-cittadinanza-2019-in-quali-negozi-si-potra-spendere/
> >
> > At the bottom of the page you can see how the voucher are (last picture):
> >
> http://www.comune.cuneo.it/emergenza-covid-19-a-cuneo/spendiamoci-buono-spesa-alimentare.html
> >
> > My only concern is that in my opinion, these vo

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

I am not a fan of the confusing use of highway=path  for foot-cycleways and
narrow mountain hiking ways, but that is a fact in OSM, and we need to live
with that.

However I would like to underline that highway=cycleway or highway=path +
foot=designated + bicycle=designated do not necessarily imply the
suitability of the way for normal bicycles.. These tags only tell you about
he legal access of the way. Surface, smoothness, and width (or est_width),
together with the elevation profile (data that is not in OSM) are also
needed for bicycle routing..
For hiking paths you have in addition SAC-scale and MTB-scale.

Examples of unpaved cycleways in my city:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Ezjn-npOmRSQ-dHkMztzl
  (cycleway)
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/DWHevDzL7i9eQDYSNbvCJcg
 (foot-cycleway)
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lAnBsThrDjTxjhvfXhB0Yg (cycle lane)

The problem is guessing by routers in case of incomplete tagging. Just to
get myself an idea I checked:
My city shows 1533 ways tagged as cycleways and foot-cycleways, of which
91.7% with surface, 54.7% with smoothness, 52.1% with width
(This excludes all cycle lanes and a few cycleways that are not present as
separate ways in OSM)

Basically we have the instruments - let's use them instead of inventing new
tags.



On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 16:15, Adam Franco  wrote:

> For those who missed it, a related discussion was just had on this list
> about differentiating mountain-biking trails from cycleways.
> See the resulting proposal for path=mtb
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb and
> threads from April in Tagging:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-April/051864.html
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:51 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21/05/2020 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Similarly anyone creating
>> highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes"
>> should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or other less
>> harmful activity.
>>
>> While "danger" isn't a much used tag (and I'm sure wasn't a serious
>> suggestion here - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/danger#values
>> ), sometimes "foot=yes" is correct and other tags need to be taken into
>> account.  I've used the area around
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431056034 as an example of that
>> before.  Here "foot=yes" is correct - there is a legal right of access.  "
>> sac_scale
>> =demanding_alpine_hiking"
>> also makes sense here I think.
>>
>> I take Frederik's reference to Andy Allan's point about "a
>> multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering anything with
>> a highway tag the same as their most minor road style" but frankly there's
>> simply no solution to that - presumably "highway=dangerouspath" (to make up
>> a nonsensical value) or
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=via%20ferrata would still
>> get shown as a "road".
>>
>> Map styles need to be clear about what they're showing and what they're
>> not showing and people using maps need to be able to read maps so that they
>> understand what they're being told.  This isn't really a tagging issue,
>> unless OSM mappers aren't using appropriate other tags when they should
>> (sac_scale, trail_visibility, surface, etc.)
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Volker Schmidt]

Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact.
We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are needed.

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 21:35, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
> So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some
> similar value)?
>
> Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve,
> or cycleway
> on a slope may be noticeably larger.
>
> There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a
> pedestrian road,
> with varied opinions.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
> So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some
similar value)?
>
> Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on
curve, or cycleway
> on a slope may be noticeably larger.
>
> There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a
pedestrian road,
> with varied opinions.
Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway,
width=4 would be an error?

General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way
according to community consensus.  However, when it comes to the highway=*
tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical
classification, which is confusing.

For example, a way intended for walking, running, cycling is
highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its
width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified)
(physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service,
pedestrian, or something else.

A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).

If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are
data users/consumers supposed to figure this out?

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact.
> We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are
needed.
I agree! For the way in question, I tagged its width (as well as
smoothness, max_speed, and a number of other tags) at the time it was
created.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?

No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly
cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes horses) are 3 to 4
meters wide, and occasionally even wider. Police sometimes drive cars on
these paths to access emergencies, and the bridges are strong enough for a
motor vehicle, but non-emergency vehicles are excluded and the paths are
clearly made for bikes and pedestrians.

> a way intended for walking, running, cycling is
highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its
width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified)
(physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service,
pedestrian, or something else.

It is incorrect to use the different highway values for physical
classification; the differences are functional. Usually the form follows
the function. E.g. a highway=pedestrian is generally a whole street where
motor vehicles are excluded (though they might enter for emergencies or at
certain times for deliveries).

> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).

The length and surface do not have any bearing on the classification, in
theory. While it's true that highway=track is sometimes misused for unpaved
driveways, this is generally an example of mistagging for the renderer,
since many styles do not render unpaved service roads differently,
unfortunately. It's possible for private service roads to be several
kilometers in length, though this is much more common for industrial or
business-related service roads, rather than residential driveways.

– Joseph Eisenberg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 23:15 by miketh...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by > miketh...@gmail.com> :
> >
> > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some 
> > similar value)?
> >
> > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve, 
> > or cycleway
> > on a slope may be noticeably larger.
> >
> > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a 
> > pedestrian road,
> > with varied opinions.
> Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, 
> width=4 would be an error?
>
It is not an automatic error.

Cycleway bridge 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.03088&mlon=19.81907#map=19/50.03088/19.81907
is quite wide, still it is clearly a cycleway.

Some areas with heavy tourism and slowly recovering nature may have extremely 
wide paths,
Czerwone Wierchy in Tatra Mountains are one of sad cases.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Czerwone_Wierchy_widok_w_stron%C4%99_Tatr_Wysokich.jpg
It is certainly path (tagged as highway=path or highway=footway)

> General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way 
> according to community consensus.  However, when it comes to the highway=* 
> tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical 
> classification, which is confusing. 
>
It is functional classification, except highway=motorway.

For simplicity and to avoid discussions people try to assign them some 
administrative
matches (maybe it works in UK as OSM copied UK administrative classification),
people try to assign physical classification.

There are unpaved highway=trunk, there are paved highway=track and so on.

> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is 
> highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is 
> too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical 
> classification).
>
Way used solely to access a private residence is always highway=service, 
service=driveway no matter
whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes wide.

Why you think that "too rough" driveway is no longer highway=service, 
service=driveway?
(if based on poor wiki docs then I would be happy to fix, if it is based on iD 
presets then
I would not recommend using iD presets to learn how OSM tagging works - there 
are
some problematic cases like peculiar description of highway=track that are 
deliberately 
unfixed)


> If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are data 
> users/consumers supposed to figure this out?
>
Use OSM Wiki, use taginfo, look at data - if confused ask on mailing list (or 
elsewhere).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 21. May 2020, at 23:17, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is 
> highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is 
> too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical 
> classification).
> 
> If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are data 
> users/consumers supposed to figure this out?


I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is 
actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth 
showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). 


The distinction by width (wide enough for a car or only for a bike) seems a 
very fundamental one, it has also functional implications. On the other hand, 
footways and cycleways may be wide enough for a car, their tagging is mostly 
determined by the legal situation, (e.g. signed, in parks), and the same for 
their path synonyms (with *=designated), so it’s only between “non designated” 
path and track that width is decisive (functionally: usable by tractors or not).

If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will 
depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a driveway, and 
when you would consider it track, that’s why there isn’t a clear limit on a 
global level.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Claire Halleux]

Hi Mario,

the three low-range facilities are called: "Puesto de Salud", "Subcentro
> de Salud", and "Centro de Promoción de Salud".  I've never seen one of
> them, personally speaking, I'm just interpreting the information at
>
> http://www.minsa.gob.pa/cartera-salud/cartera-de-servicio-por-nivel-de-atencion
> and asking local people for help understanding what I'm reading.
>
> The "centro de promoción" does not offer any other support but by
> education and communication.  allegedly: "Organización comunitaria,
> Participación Social, Educación y comunicación para la Salud."
> supposing they do exist and they do provide the service, I would not
> know how to tag these.
>

Are these like NGOs doing health promotion or a service organized by health
authorities?
If it's the latter, are they constituted by volunteers from the
village/community? Could these be considered as "community health workers"?

summarizing, to represent the lower end of the Panamanian healthcare
> facilities, apart from the mentioned proposed new categories:
> healthcare=nurses (technicians/engineers), and healthcare=community_*
> (stagists/capacitated/?), we als need to tag the periodicity of the
> extra presence, and the prevention/education/information function.
>

Regarding the periodicity of the extra presence, is this information
official or do you think it varies for each facility and should be
collected separately for each? How likely could this be?

Thank you,
Claire
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Claire Halleux]

Thank you for the detailed answer.

Indeed, this amenity=health_post tag is similar to the "poste de santé" in
the DRC. It is the exact match of one of the 5 low-range health facility
types among the 14 types of health facilities currently documented in the
country (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Congo-Kinshasa/Conventions/Sant%C3%A9).
The tag description is likely to cover other types of facilities too, it
will likely be discussed on the local list next.

Happy to read that community_health_worker value might get consensus.


On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The tag amenity=health_post has been mainly used in Nepal, with some use
> in Guinea (West Africa) and northern Ethiopia:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/UeI
>
> Those in Guinea are usually named "Poste de santé de " - so
> perhaps they are similar to the Poste de Santé in your area?
> E.g. nodes 4218024825 ,
> 4218025230 , and 4218028928
> 
>
> There is an online article about the Health Post system in Ethiopia:
> http://www.hhpronline.org/articles/2016/12/17/the-health-extension-program-of-ethiopia
>
> "More than 38,000 government-salaried female Health Extension Workers
> (HEWs) are deployed in the country. 3 Two HEWs are assigned to one health
> post to serve a population ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 in a village
> “kebele”. HEWs provide key health services through fixed and outreach
> bases. They spend half of their working time conducting home visits and
> outreach activities and the remaining half at their health post providing
> basic curative, promotive and preventive services."
>
> Example: node 977989612 
>
> In Nepal, the amenity=health_post is used for "Health Post" and
> "Sub-Health Post" facilities. This article says:
>
> "health assitant, axulliary health worker, assistant nurse midwife and
> maternal-child health worker are designated to work in PHC-C, HP [Health
> Post] or SHP [Sub-Health Post] in rural areas but to date there are
> insufficinet trained health workers available."
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723647/pdf/12199_2008_Article_BF02897302.pdf
>  -
> older article
>
>
> https://www.advancingpartners.org/resources/technical-briefs/nepal-community-based-health-system-model
> - more recent:
> "community-based health services provided by the three cadres of
> community-level service providers (CLSPs): female community health
> volunteers (FCHVs), auxiliary nurse midwives (ANWs) and auxiliary health
> workers (AHWs).2 Until recently, two other cadres—village health workers
> (VHWs) and maternal and child health workers (MCHWs)—operated in Nepal, but
> were upgraded to AHWs and ANMs. "
>
> So these health posts are not staffed by nurses or doctors, they might
> have an "auxiliary nurse midwife" or "auxiliary health worker"
>
> Comparing the 3 countries, all are health facilities at the village or
> neighborhood level which provide health care via workers who do not have as
> much formal training. I would agree that most of these workers might be
> called "community health workers" as a general term, though each country
> uses somewhat different terminology.
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:49 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as
a pedestrian road,
> > with varied opinions.
> Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?
>
> It is not an automatic error.
Good, that makes sense.


> General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way
according to community consensus.  However, when it comes to the highway=*
tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical
classification, which is confusing.
>
> It is functional classification, except highway=motorway.
That is what I have always thought, but it seems that some people seem to
object to the way in question being tagged as highway=path (because it is
wide and its surface is gravel?) when it is clearly (I surveyed it in
person) constructed and signed for recreational foot and bike use and is
owned and operated by the City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Department
(I guess I could add an operator=* tag if that would help).

> There are unpaved highway=trunk, there are paved highway=track and so on.
>
> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).
>
> Way used solely to access a private residence is always highway=service,
service=driveway no matter
> whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes
wide.
Again, this is what I have always thought, but there was an earlier
discussion on this list where some people objected.

>
> Why you think that "too rough" driveway is no longer highway=service,
service=driveway?
> (if based on poor wiki docs then I would be happy to fix, if it is based
on iD presets then
> I would not recommend using iD presets to learn how OSM tagging works -
there are
> some problematic cases like peculiar description of highway=track that
are deliberately
> unfixed)
I use JOSM, and usually enter tags by hand as opposed to using the presets.
In the above mentioned earlier discussion some participants were opposed to
me changing a highway=track to highway=service, service=driveway based on
length and condition.  Someone even questioned whether the owner of the
property might own a 4x4 vehicle and if that was necessary to access the
residence over the way in question. I didn't think that could have anything
to do with it.

> if confused ask on mailing list (or elsewhere).
That is usually the source of confusion.  Multiple, conflicting, views.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:
>
> > Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?
>
> No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly
cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes horses) are 3 to 4
meters wide, and occasionally even wider. Police sometimes drive cars on
these paths to access emergencies, and the bridges are strong enough for a
motor vehicle, but non-emergency vehicles are excluded and the paths are
clearly made for bikes and pedestrians.
That makes sense.

> > a way intended for walking, running, cycling is
 highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its
width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified)
(physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service,
pedestrian, or something else.
>
> It is incorrect to use the different highway values for physical
classification; the differences are functional. Usually the form follows
the function. E.g. a highway=pedestrian is generally a whole street where
motor vehicles are excluded (though they might enter for emergencies or at
certain times for deliveries).
That too makes sense.

> > A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).
>
> The length and surface do not have any bearing on the classification, in
theory. While it's true that highway=track is sometimes misused for unpaved
driveways, this is generally an example of mistagging for the renderer,
since many styles do not render unpaved service roads differently,
unfortunately. It's possible for private service roads to be several
kilometers in length, though this is much more common for industrial or
business-related service roads, rather than residential driveways.
Up in the mountains around here we have some long driveways (although
several km would be rare), either because the property itself is very
large, or because it is an inholding in the National Forest.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule
is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be
worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service
roads).
Isn't that tagging for the renderer?

> The distinction by width (wide enough for a car or only for a bike) seems
a very fundamental one, it has also functional implications. On the other
hand, footways and cycleways may be wide enough for a car, their tagging is
mostly determined by the legal situation, (e.g. signed, in parks), and the
same for their path synonyms (with *=designated), so it’s only between “non
designated” path and track that width is decisive (functionally: usable by
tractors or not).
According to what others are saying here - if I am understanding correctly
- width should have nothing to do with it (other than if the width is too
narrow for certain functions).

> If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will
depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a driveway,
and when you would consider it track, that’s why there isn’t a clear limit
on a global level.
This seems to contradict what Mateusz  said. "Way used solely to access a
private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter
whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes
wide."

So you are saying that the highway=* tag depends not just on its function,
not just on its physical condition, but also on its physical condition
relative to the other ways in the vicinity?!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Warin]

On 22/5/20 3:20 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
Nodes with roles in the route relation deserve another proposal to 
make it "official". The CAI-project sounds promising, I will look into 
it once this business is done! My wife is learning Italian, so maybe 
she can even translate the text (into Dutch, for our post-corona 
hiking and biking season?) :)

For the moment, I think it has no impact on this proposal.



+1. Leave nodes out of this proposal. Let us get the roles for ways done.


Discussions on nodes (guideposts, maps, signposts etc) can be left for 
later.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging