On 6/13/2016 10:23 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
John Willis <jo...@mac.com> writes:
[dropping things replied to already]
On Jun 13, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
Subkey:
Trail=main (usually there is some backbone path that all trails branch out from
in a large park.)
Trail=official (officially designated trails in a park, where that matters)
I agree there should be some tag to show that a trail/path is the main
one.
I don't think official/not-official should be related to main/not.
I was thinking like, in a large natural preserve/park, there is a loop path or
major point-to-point path that is the busiest/emphasized.
Maybe you are trying to say we should be able to tag both values simultaneously?
Yes. That's all I meant. It could be that the trail everybody thinks
is main is not official. And non-main trails may be official and may
be not-official. So I would like to see one tag for official/not and
one for main/not, so we can record each aspect or reality separately and
not get into trouble when there is some way of doing things that we
haven't encountered before.
As a mapper .. how do I tell?
What is the difference between 'main' or 'minor' .. if it iw
width/surface/roughness then use those tags. If it is traffic .. OSM does not
have a tag for that.. and that would be so variable that it would be
problematic to tag.
Official/not I cannot judge from the track. Anything that is 'there' could be
said to be condoned untill there is a sign to say it is not. Then I can tag
access=no or whatever the sign indicates.
Trail=unofficial / social (shortcuts in a park or a city)
trail:official=no seems fine for any trail which is not sanctioned by
the authorities. (I don't see why you say park or city; anyplace there
is a notion that some places are official then others can be not.)
If people know this is a shortcut footpath that is not normal (that
footpath along a fence that bypasses a longer route on an official
sidewalk) then saying it is "informal" or "social" or something would
be good. Otherwise it would be =yes.
I don't like the word 'social'; that isn't in use around here.
Again I would like to see the primary semantics be clear first, and then
finer points. If a path is not sanctioned/maintained by the
authorities, then it's official=no. There are multiple kinds of these.
There are shortcuts as you say, which could be labeled shortcut. There
are non-official access trails into conservation land. There are other
non-official trails in conservation land.
Trail=illegal (social cuts that exist but are specifically illegal
because of posted signage to stay on official trails, or ones that are
go into an area signed as "do not enter".
This feels like osm veering into judgement; that sounds like a simple
case of access=no.
I think this should only be used sparingly, where it is *explicity*
signed - similar to a driveway that says "emergency access only" - it
is explicit.
Many parks have official trails mapped, and where a social trail
branches off, they put a sign there that says "do not enter/sensitive
area" or similar - that is very very explicit. I agree it is good to
know for orienteering to know you have reached that point. If a
rendered map chooses to leave them off, okay - but it is good to have
the way in the dataset so it isn't added incorrectly in the future.
It seems fine to put the sign in the db, or a tag like
access_no=regulation
access_no=posted
to record the reason for the access=no.
errr
source:access=regulation
source:access=local sign
would be consistent with present OSM tags.
I am always trying to think
about data consumers that don't know about the latest tagging schemes,
so if something is a subcategory of access, or a subcategory of trail, I
think it's good to keep them tagged in a way that one gets sensible results.
What I was really objecting to is 'illegal'. What's law, what's
landowner rules, what's conservation commission regulation is all messy.
So I'd like to see a more detached characterization of reality.
Just as OSM shows motorways down to driveway parking isles and rocky
unmaintained tracks with so many different highway values, I am
interested in showing - via tags and rendering - the different levels
of non-car walking ways, from a wide and leisurely "path" in a city
park, a sidewalk along a road, a social trail through the weeds along
the top of a river retaining berm, and a signed and maintained hiking
trail of various grades and quality in a natural park.
I agree with your goals here. But, I think it's messier, because the
road hierarchy of primary/secondary is about importance, not physical.
I was just on an A road in Scotland, which was single-track but at least
had passing places. Still, it was the main road.
If we can't go beyond =path and =footpath, we need some kind of subkey
I think we can't :-(
value or colon separated value to do it, and not rely on surface or
wheelchair accessibility tags to imply it - it should be as explicit
as a driveway or a grade3 track.
Agreed. I think we need tags that are about
the overall experience of traversing the trail
and separately
how important the trail is in the local trail network
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
