> On Mar 3, 2015, at 2:15 AM, John F. Eldredge <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote: > > 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". >
+1 Hiking is a form of leisure for people - to go hiking in a wilderness reserve or something. It's big brother is trekking or backpacking - also done for leisure in the wilderness. It may next to a suburban setting ( wilderness reserve parks in Southern CA) or even an urban setting ( cutting over a small mountain to get to another part of the city, which does happen here in Japan). - but usually anything with a slope, a rough path, and something that doesn't look like a sidewalk is a path, instead of a footpath, and would involve hiking. I would never include them in walking routes to get to A To B ~ Walking, from an OSM view, is something related to transportation or commuting - to get from A to B, or for leisure/tourism on maintained walkways where special footwear and a hiking staff is unnecessary. > -- > 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. > Great quote! > > >> 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 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
