Huh. And here in Australia (well, at least amongst the people I know) the difference between a "hike" and any other form of walking is strictly whether it's more than one day. A daywalk is, well, a day or less, and a hike is two or more days.
But that doesn't cause me any concerns using "route=hiking". On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 13:06 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: > > In Belgium and The Netherlands we have tagged all the regional walking > > networks as foot. With this system of walking networks it is possible > > to plan walks as short as 2-3 km and and long as a few hundred > > kilometers. For me the short walks are no hikes, but that might be the > > wrong interpretation. > > > > > > We had some discussion about this (foot vs hiking) a few years ago. We > > decided to stay with foot because that was used in The Netherlands and > > Germany. And because some of those networks cross the border, it did > > look appropriate to change it only in Belgium. > > > In UK English, the language of OSM, hike has extreme connotations. > Hiking implies a route over extreme ground and a forced high pace. If I > was to describe one of my ramblers walks as 'a hike' I would not get > many takers. > > US English uses the term hike to describe a walk in the countryside, > which is the usage I suspect Fly is using. > > Having done a Overpass Turbo query on route=foot locally, it returns the > Shropshire Way and Severn Way. I would not use the term hike to describe > either, route=foot is absolutely appropriate. > > Phil (trigpoint) > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
