As a side note: I would be worried to redefine the mtb=yes/no tag that is not documented but widely used. I do agree that makes sense to define it as an access tag, though. Yves
Le 5 avril 2020 09:48:07 GMT+02:00, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> a écrit : >Thanks for everyone's good feedback and discussion. I feel we are >getting >closer to a conclusion. > >Before this discussion my view on how it should work was: > >Designed/mostly used for vehicles, forestry, agriculture, bush fire >trucks >(known as fire trails in Australia) -> highway=track >Designed/mostly used for walking (including hiking) -> highway=footway >Designed/mostly used for bicycles (including mountain biking) -> >highway=cycleway >Designed/mostly used for horses -> highway=bridleway >Not designed for any specific mode/mixed use (no formal designation) -> >highway=path > >Although that feels most logical to me, since the sentiment here is >strongly against this view about highway=cycleway including mountain >bike >tracks, I'm proposing instead: > >Designed/mostly used for city cycling (excluding mountain biking) -> >highway=cycleway >Designed/mostly used for mountain biking (excluding city cycling) -> >highway=path + path=mtb >Not designed for any specific mode/mixed use -> highway=path > >The reasoning behind this takes into consideration: > >bicycle= as an access tag should refer to any class of bicycles by >default. >Today I was walking a track which had a no bicycles sign, meaning all >types >of bikes are disallowed. Conversely bicycle=yes just means that >bicycles >are legally/physically allowed, it does not indicate suitability by a >specific type of bicycle. I don't think I've ever seen signage which >says >no mountain bikes but you can use a road bike, or vice versa. If there >is >then we should use sub bicycle access tags like road_bike=, mtb=, bmx= >etc. >You could have a path which is clearly a mountain bike track but >officially >bicycles are not allowed. So based on this we can't use these kinds of >access tags to define the type of path they must be kept independent. > >Not all mountain bike tracks are mtb=designated. Many paths are built >for >and used mostly by mountain bikes, key giveaways are jumps, corner >banks >and other technical features, but not officially signposted or marked >for >use by mountain bikes. Conversely the track could be signposted for use >by >mountain bikes but not actually be a mountain bike track, eg. it could >be >highway=track which is not a mountain bike track, but indicated as a >way >for use by mountain bikes so mtb=designated. > >So I'm proposing the access tags bicycle= refer to any/all bicycles. >mtb= >become an access tag (mtb=designated for signposted mountain bike). >path=mtb become a tag to say the path on the ground here is >designed=mostly >used for mountain biking. > >I feel this is better than a new highway=singletrack tag since >renderers, >routers, etc can still interpret the path without making changes. If we >move to a new tag, these tracks will disappear from routers and maps >overnight. > >All other tags like surface, smoothness, mtb:scale, route=mtb still >apply. >leisure=track would still apply to short loop tracks like a BMX pump >track >or a velodrome, but not to longer A to B tracks. > >Thoughts? I can help work on the wiki proposal for these tag changes >(mtb= >as an access tag and path=mtb) but keen to hear feedback here first.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
