I too think leisure=track would be even more misleading. I think singletrack should continue to be a highway=* value. I've never heard someone call singletrack a cycleway here in Brisbane Australia, and I always think of commuting when I think of cycleway.
- Recreation is just one use of these trails, new trails are often built to break up bushland for easier hazard reduction burning, it is a highway I don't think it belongs under leisure=* - Lots of singletrack are more cross country and less technical with few features allowing much easier access to a range of activities from bushwalking to MTB, little problem riding a cheap road bike (those without skinny tyres) on many of these - Some trails are "built" and signed for MTB recreational use, other trails are just natural without signs but are still known as singletrack - Sometimes unbuilt trails are created by erosion, wallabies or just walking/running/riding the same line. Land managers usually don't want people blazing their own trails but often don't actively "close" these unsanctioned trails, they are still singletrack, wallabies have fun too :) - Bushland can have both dirt and asphalt fire roads (many tracks up to water reservoirs are paved), we've got highway=track to represent fire roads/double track - We've got highway=steps and highway=corridor specialisations - I've never used highway=cycleway for singletrack, always highway=path because there is nothing better, when I look at the cycleway=* key all I see is something completely unrelated, all the values and sub-keys aren't relevant to singletrack. I think using highway=singletrack could be a good complement to highway=track, then we can use standard access (default foot=yes, horse=no, bicycle=yes, motorcycle=no) and surface tagging like we do for highway=track. highway=path can continue to be the catch all for "a non-specific path". Wikipedia has a good description if what I said didn't make enough sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_track_(mountain_biking) On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think using leisure=track for a mountain bike path is even more > misleading than highway=cycleway. > > A feature with leisure=track is usually an oval racing track for > runners, track cyclists, or similar sports. This tag is simply not > used for mountain bike paths; > > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Sjk - only 89 ways (including loops, like > mtb pump tracks) > > By contrast, highway=cycleway + mtb=designated has been used 558 > times: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Sjl > > Clearly many mappers consider highway=cycleway an appropriate tag for > a designated mountain bike path. > > However, it's true that highway=path is used more commonly with > mtb=yes and mtb=designated: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Sjo - over > 13,000 occurences. > > Unfortuately only a little over half of those ways have a surface=* > tag - adding those tags would be more productive than arguing about > whether to use highway=cycleway or highway=path. (See > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Sjp) > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > > On 4/3/20, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 21:16, Marc M. <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> the first page does not show any sign suggesting that > >> it is also a pedestrian area > >> imho "It could be" is not enough to add foot=yes > >> > > > > Oh of course, my take is by default routers should assume a designated > > mountain bike track is discouraged for pedestrians but legally allowed. > > Although where signage exists to indicate otherwise it should be tagged > > explicitly with foot=yes/no. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Jono
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
