Ok, I hope this will be my final post in this long thread. I will try to summarize what I understand from the discussion as the main issuesa and what needs to be addressed to make it easier for mappers and data consumers.
I would also suggest that instead of filling the inboxes of each and everyone on this tagging list, we create a smaller "working group" that can come up with a concrete suggestion to solve the major issues. What do you think about that? Who would like to work with such a proposal? *Major issues*, as I understand it: 1. How do we treat highway=path and highway=footway that has no additional tags? 2. Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we use) or a way for non-specified/mixed use? That is, are we talking about the physical characteristics of a way or its function? *Btw, this would likely mean that 99 % of path/footway/cycleway in Sweden should be path, if the latter interpretation is to be used.* 3. #1 & #2 makes it really difficult for data consumers, they have to depend on (often non-existing) subtags. 4. Additional tags must be used to denote accessibility for pedestrians/cyclists of ordinary ability, that is "this is NOT a hiking trail/wilderness trail!. But which would these tags be? 5. Additional tags must also be used to tell !this IS a wilderness trail! (or whatever term we use). *Subtags* To specify the physical characteristics of a highway=path or highway=footway we have a multitude of tags, with no particular recommendation about which ones must or should be used (see #4 & #5 above): surface, smoothness, width, trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and possibly incline. *An additional issue:* 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with mtb:scale) to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not the route). But it's very geared towards alpine trails and there is not enough nuance in the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), Australian Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on sac_scale? *What needs to be done?* 1. We have to rely on subtags... 2. We need to decide what subtags to be used to tell this is an accessible path or this is a wilderness trail. 3. We need a way to better nuance hiking trails. 4. Documention needs to be much more clear and specific, in order for mappers and data consumers to really know when different kinds of highway tags should be used and what subtags must/should be used. 5. Editors need to be improved to encourage tagging that will make it easier for data consumers. 6. Better default rendering of non-urban paths, to encourage the use of mentioned subtags. Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interestet in continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this mailing list? /Daniel Den fre 29 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com>: > Unfortunately it is more difficult to map properly the minor roads and > ways, in comparison with the major roads. There much more variegated in > appearance, in use, in rules ecc, and, at least in my part of the world > there are also simply more in numbers. > It is also correct that the available sets of tags of keys are not > orthogonal, but whatever we invent in additional new tagging, won't make > the existing tagging go away. So whatever we add, we make life for data > consumers even more complicated. And redefining the meaning of the existing > tags is also out of the question. > What we can do is to improve the documentation, which is overlapping and > dispersed abd, maybe, we can do better in documenting country-specific > tagging traditions, but not more. > Also when doing so we have to avoid absolutely anything that my appear to > be wiki fiddling. > > > > > On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> May 28, 2020, 22:05 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: >> >> So I return to, 'what's the minimalist set of attributes that we can >> use to guide a data consumer, and conversely, the minimum set of tags >> that a data consumer needs to recognize?' Specifying every attribute >> in excruciating detail is fine if you're trying to map your area >> artistically and say as much as possible; it shouldn't be necessary >> for a mapper to do so, or for a data consumer to understand >> everything, in order to get reasonable approximate results. >> >> Depends on what you want to achieve. >> >> surface=* goes a long way toward distinguishing it, >> but there are still unpaved park footways in city centers >> and paved path inaccessible to many. >> >> surface=* + wheelchair=no where applicable seems >> to cover basically everything of what I mapped - >> except unpaved paths in parks. >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
