Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Mike Thompson
All, Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. I have implemented Martin's suggestion: foot=no foot:conditional = yes @ running Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. May 2020, at 17:15, Kovoschiz wrote: > > Eg "walking speed" is often > used as a descriptor, and in this case we have "running". walking speed is still a prescription for vehicles only, it does not exclude pedestrians from running. Cheers Martin _

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Kovoschiz
While I could agree with this, it isn't entirely unreasonable to have a non-exact speed value if that's what's signed. Eg "walking speed" is often used as a descriptor, and in this case we have "running". I found that there was a unclear/rejected proposal a decade ago (if this diminishes its releva

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:02 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > > How is this access preference indicated? There are signs that say something like "No Hiking, ... Mtn Bikes, Horses, and Trail Runners Only" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Peter Elderson
How is this access preference indicated? (If it's by speed, I wouldn't be allowed even when running... yesterday I barely managed 6,7 Kmph on a trail run). Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 1 mei 2020 om 22:38 schreef Mike Thompson : > Hello, > > We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking i

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Jmapb
On 5/1/2020 7:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g. foot=no foot:conditional =yes @ running I like this, a little less cheeky than conjuring an arbitrary unsigned minspeed for runners. And would be likely interpreted "correc

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Thanks Martin! On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 5:49 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g. > foot=no > foot:conditional =yes @ running That makes sense to me. I will wait and see if anyone has any objections or better ideas, and if not,

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. May 2020, at 00:37, Jmapb wrote: > > minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should > separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's > guess if there would ever be any software support for this key. minspeed and maxspee

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Thanks Jason, On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jmapb wrote: > > minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should > separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's > guess if there would ever be any software support for this key. Interesting idea. > > An

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Jmapb
On 5/1/2020 4:37 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: Hello, We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed, but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could come about, it is because the land manage

[Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello, We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed, but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could come about, it is because the land manager wants faster traffic (trail runners, mount