Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> writes: > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 01:22, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> ha >> scritto: >> >> I agree there should be some tag to show that a trail/path is the main >> one. > > do we need a tag, or is it evident by the routes that use the ways?
I think we need a tag. There are certainly a few routes that go long distances over multiple trails, but around me that's the exception. A typical example is a 250 acre (100 ha) conservation area with a main loop trail, a few access trails from parking areas at the edges, one or two connecting trails across, and then a number of trails that are definitely lesser. It is true that the lesser ones tend to be unblazed. I see this as sort of similar to highway=primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified in the trail network. We tag width, surface and speed, so in some sense the classification is not necesssary. But it's an important clue about main-ness. There is no authority that designates them that way, but in any local area there is usually a concept of which trails are higher rank. This is related to the official/informal issue, but I think it's separate. What I was trying to say earlier to John Willis is that we have several sets of properties official or not (maintained/suggested by property owner/manager) main or not (place in the hierarchy really) blazed or not whether or not people are prohibited from non-official trails and now you correctly add to that list is the trail part of a named/numbered route I think it's better to use one tag for each fact, rather than to trying to group properties into names that imply several of these at once. I believe, without enough evidence, that the customs of how these facts relate to each other vary by region and probably even locally.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
