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 not impossible, it is > still somehow strange. Why shouldn't we simply add another highway > class on the lowest end? Would simplify all of our lives (at least for > all those who sometimes leave the car when mapping) and add some > clarity. > > 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 highway=path.
I think path is clear enough. A path is - according to the wiki - too narrow for a car to drive on. If you add a surface tag I don't see any need for another tag. If you want to emphasize how difficult it is to walk there we have the sac_scale tags. I'd use highway=footway only on ways which have the blue sign with the white pedestrians on it, because on any other way it is not forbidden to e.g. ride on it with a bicycle. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
