Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/27 Pieren : > I'm not sure that's a good idea. By doing this, you give the possibility to > trace almost all possible footways around the world even when it's not > really a footway, e.g. shortcuts in parks. Or in nature, any track done by > wild animals will become a footway, informal=yes

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > > > constructed and not maintained or signposted but are only there for > > > the fact that someone uses them. > > > > > I inform you that I am using informal=yes for ways that ar

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > constructed and not maintained or signposted but are only there for > > the fact that someone uses them. > > > I inform you that I am using informal=yes for ways that are not > sounds quite reasonable > > > I'm not sure that's a good ide

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:30:40 +0200 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I inform you that I am using informal=yes for ways that are not > constructed and not maintained or signposted but are only there for > the fact that someone uses them. sounds quite reasonable __

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:31:40 +0200 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I am speaking of narrow (in > all cases below 1 metre, I'd say less then 0.5 m actually, usually > 20-30 cm). They have to be not planned, not maintained, ground > surface: they are simply there because people (or animal) use them.

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/26 sylvain letuffe : > Some people advocate this should be a tagged as > highway=path+via_ferrata_scale=something, I don't. I agree, that would harm more then help. > But the informal path this thread is about, unless I haven't been able to > understand what it really is, could be saf

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: >> >> please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag. >> > (...) > I don't say stuff can't be expressed currently, but it would > make the life of mappers, renderers, routers much easier if there was > a way

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/26/2010 05:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: you _are_ to use this tag, go ahead ;-) Thanks, but it’s not that I feel restricted from using this tag. I just don’t feel the need to tag paths as being informal; highway=path is quite enough for my purposes. —Alex Mauer “hawke”

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 26 October 2010 20:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/10/26 John Smith : >> On 26 October 2010 07:53, Alex Mauer wrote: >>> I would consider those to be informal=yes, were I to use this tag. >> >> As Felix pointed out, that doesn't add anything useful to describe the >> current state of the

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/26 John Smith : > On 26 October 2010 07:53, Alex Mauer wrote: >> I would consider those to be informal=yes, were I to use this tag. > > As Felix pointed out, that doesn't add anything useful to describe the > current state of the path, only how it may have been formed, "anything useful"

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/25 Alex Mauer : > I would consider those to be informal=yes, were I to use this tag. you _are_ to use this tag, go ahead ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/25 Felix Hartmann : > There is no such thing as informal. maybe you should rename your username from "extremecarver" to "extremeopinionist" ;-) Of course there are informal ways/paths. Not every informal looking path is indeed informal, but that doesn't imply that there aren't any. I agre

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 26 October 2010 07:53, Alex Mauer wrote: > I would consider those to be informal=yes, were I to use this tag. As Felix pointed out, that doesn't add anything useful to describe the current state of the path, only how it may have been formed, the first picture you posted looks like it would be

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/25/2010 04:36 PM, Felix Hartmann wrote: Most people underestimate that for many informal looking trails, there are actually people caring to keep them in shape. Be it paid trailbuilders, hunters, forestry staff or simply residents that want to have a trail for unknown reason. There is nothi

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 25.10.2010 22:29, Alex Mauer wrote: On 10/24/2010 04:30 AM, M[measured angle :-p]rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I inform you that I am using informal=yes for ways that are not constructed and not maintained or signposted but are only there for the fact that someone uses them. That sounds to me l

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/24/2010 04:30 AM, M[measured angle :-p]rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I inform you that I am using informal=yes for ways that are not constructed and not maintained or signposted but are only there for the fact that someone uses them. That sounds to me like a good way to handle it. It would p

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

necessary. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths;trail >From :mailto:ha...@hawkesnest.net Date :Mon Oct 25 14:50:29 America/Chicago 2010 On 10/23/2010 08:31 AM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: > On 10/22/2010 09:49 PM, Alex Maue

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/23/2010 08:45 AM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 09:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.” That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion. Then what d

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/23/2010 08:31 AM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 09:49 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it A tr

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/23 Pieren : > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> >> And we don't need a new tag for trails. >> > > +1. At least one point where almost everybody agrees ;-) OK, I aknowledge this, IMHO sad, because it puts the granularity in all other highway-tags away for path whi

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/23/2010 11:01 PM, Pieren wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ralf Kleineisel > wrote: > > Then what do you think is the difference between "path" and "track > grade5"? I think only the width. > Not 'only'. If you see that the way is or has been used

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: > And we don't need a new tag for trails. > > +1. At least one point where almost everybody agrees ;-) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/list

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: > > Then what do you think is the difference between "path" and "track > grade5"? I think only the width. > > > Not 'only'. If you see that the way is or has been used by 4 wheels vehicules, then tag 'track', otherwise 'path'. Imagine a path

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/23/2010 06:02 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> The wiki says: >> The example photos there support this. > > And the other pages say otherwise. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway both say "de

[Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

Ralf Kleineisel wrote: The wiki says: The example photos there support this. And the other pages say otherwise. As you say, example photos, not definition photos. The text and the pictures in the wiki have been changed to each and every direction so many times that none will be able to force t

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/23/2010 02:04 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > No, not that restrictive. When path was introduced, the equivalence > was given inother direction: there are globally lots of ways tagged > as footways and cycleways that have no signposts at all, some of The wiki says: "highway cycleway For designat

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 09:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for > four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.” > > That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion. Then what do you think is the difference between "path

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 09:49 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a > track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t > have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it A track is not defined by being physically imposs

[Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: (given that footway, cycleway and bridleway are all synonyms of highway=path designated=foo, dedicated=foo, official=foo, etc.). Ralf Kleineisel wrote: Footway on the other hand is for designated pedestrian ways, i.e. in many countries a blue sign with pedestrians

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/22 Alex Mauer : > On 10/22/2010 02:18 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> >> On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >>> Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags >>> for a 3 m wide and paved "path" and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and >>> unmaintained "path

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 02:13 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 06:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Looking at a dictionary I found "trail" (for german "Trampelpfad"), and helas: there is already a tag-page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail It isn't very clear though and fro

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 02:18 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved "path" and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained "path". If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 06:43 PM, SURLY_ru wrote: > Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is > "highway=footway". The wiki and the actual usage say nothing about wether it was intentionally built. Footway on the other hand is for designated pedestrian ways, i.e. in many countries a blu

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags > for a 3 m wide and paved "path" and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and > unmaintained "path". If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it's paved it's grade1, if it's worse its a low

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 06:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/10/22 John Smith : >> Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? > > > No, in the case of path this is a common misconception, and in the > case of track: where did you get this idea from? This is not a misconception. The wiki

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 06:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > It's now almost 3 years that I'm mapping and when I entered small > informal (not planned or built) footpaths I was using cryptic tag > combinations like highway=footway, informal=yes, width=0.3 (or > highway=path), surface=ground. While that is

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/22 Alex Mauer : > On 10/22/2010 12:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> Well, beside this little detail, that some paths are formal (they are >> intended, sign posted, maintained, have maybe names, etc.) and others >> are informal, usually shortcuts, usually not very long, shall not be >

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 12:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Well, beside this little detail, that some paths are formal (they are intended, sign posted, maintained, have maybe names, etc.) and others are informal, usually shortcuts, usually not very long, shall not be maintained, etc. OK, but take this

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/22 Mike N. : >  I would still say that the current highway=path handles this very well. > I've never felt constrained by this tag with the common attributes.   You > can provide direction to renderers by adding surface=, width=, sac_scale, > mtb:scale .   If current renderers do not interpr

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/22 SURLY_ru : >> highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal >> footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well >> maintained and paved ways. > > Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is > "highway=footway". Unintentional, in

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag. Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved "path" and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained "path". We have x road classes and just one for ways that are not roads (

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/10 12:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: They have to be not planned, not maintained, ground surface: they are simply there because people (or animal) use them. There might be some intersection with small paths in some cases, but usually I'd also say that paths are broader. this will le

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 11:28 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: John Smith wrote: Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? highway=track is for ways that are wide enough for two-tracked vehicles. highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to d

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 23 October 2010 02:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I don't see a benefit from subtagging here, it is a new class IMHO. I don't see a benefit in tagging these differently than highway=path, and so far you have failed to show how they differ, as others have pointed out, the path tag is for any

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 10/22/2010 11:43 AM, SURLY_ru wrote: highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well maintained and paved ways. Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is "highway=footway". Incorrec

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/22 John Smith : > On 23 October 2010 02:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> OK, thank you for this comment. So I'd propose highway=informal or >> highway=informal_path > > If you are so determined to make a new type, at least do it as a sub-type... > > highway=path > path=informal Why? We

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/22 Apollinaris Schoell : > please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag. Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved "path" and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained "path". We have x road classes and just

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

> highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal > footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well > maintained and paved ways. Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is "highway=footway". Unintentional, informal way is "highway=path".

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 23 October 2010 02:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > OK, thank you for this comment. So I'd propose highway=informal or > highway=informal_path If you are so determined to make a new type, at least do it as a sub-type... highway=path path=informal _

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/22 Craig Wallace : > Yes, "trail" is an even more ambiguous word than "path". It can refer to > just about anything that isn't a paved road. So it might be a forest track, > or a hiking path, or a mountain bike trail etc. And it might be an official, > signposted route or it might not. > S

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 22/10/2010 17:14, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: We could hijack the trail page (given that trail to native speakers implies what I want to express) Not really; see the "rails to trails" movement. Yes, "trail" is an even more ambiguo

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010/10/22 John Smith : > Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? No, in the case of path this is a common misconception, and in the case of track: where did you get this idea from? tracks are kind of roads (they are at least broad enough for 4-wheeled / normal cars), they are usual

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

John Smith wrote: > Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? highway=track is for ways that are wide enough for two-tracked vehicles. highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well maintained a

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 22 Oct 2010, at 9:11 , M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Looking at a dictionary I found "trail" (for german "Trampelpfad"), > and helas: there is already a tag-page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail > > It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is hig

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

yes, a sub-group to deal with trails can be created for trail=*, i'll also look into that and see what has already been done by the other schemas for this sub-grouping. My aim is to have a full tagging schema report (SchemaTroll 2.01 - White Paper) done by Nov 21st. Cheers, Sam On 10/22/10, M∡

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On 22/10/2010 17:14, John Smith wrote: Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? I agree. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > We could hijack the trail page (given that trail to native speakers > implies what I want to express) Not really; see the "rails to trails" movement. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openst

Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

It's now almost 3 years that I'm mapping and when I entered small informal (not planned or built) footpaths I was using cryptic tag combinations like highway=footway, informal=yes, width=0.3 (or highway=path), surface=ground. While that is not impossible, it is still somehow strange. Why shouldn't