Speaking from an American point of view, I tend to think of "hiking" as a
wilderness, or at least rural, activity. In an urban setting, I would
likely refer to "walking".
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
On March 2, 2015 5:45:13 AM moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2015, fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I just say, that out of the 25,000 objects tagged with route=foot over
> 21,000 have been tagged either network=lwn or network=rwn and would be
> better tagged route=hiking as that is the route type for hiking routes.
>
> In general, I do not like route=foot but I sustain the description on
> the German wiki page and the little passage at the beginning of the
> second table on the English wiki page of route=hiking.
I think that's where the language nuance comes in. To me, "hiking" is
a special variant of "walking". Something linked to sport, or love of
the outdoors. In contrast, route=foot looks like it caters to more
"utilitarian" reasons, where walking is the mean but not the goal.
The most obvious example being tourist trails to see the attractions
of a city. Tourists would rather do as little walking as possible to
see the different POIs. And it's perfectly reasonable for those routes
to have a network=*. In fact, I'd find any route relation with neither
network=* nor operator=* a bit suspicious.
To sum it up: I feel there's a usefull distinction between route=foot
and route=hiking, they don't have to be merged. However, that
distinction could (as always) do with better documentation.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
