Thanks for the replies, will probably go with something like overgrown=yes.

The path concerned has not been closed - it looks like a forestry track which 
was formerly used by vehicles but hasn't for many years. However, unlike many 
of the paths in the same area it doesn't appear to be popular as a 'desire 
path' and is definitely less pleasurable to negotiate than many of the others 
in the area. Just wanted some way of distinguishing this path from others in 
the area in active use, so that those seeking a 'nice walk in the woods' could 
avoid it!

Nick

________________________________
From: Andrew Harvey <[email protected]>
Sent: 26 September 2020 03:58
To: Talk Openstreetmap <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

Abandoned is a tricky concept for a path, what make is abandoned? If there is a 
sign up saying track closed or keep out for re-vegetation it's clear, but 
otherwise it's less clear.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 01:36, Andy Townsend 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about deleting it 
altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path before deleting it to 
something like "note=nothing on this alignment any more".

If there is still some evidence on the ground, I think using the lifecycle 
prefix is preferable because usually it takes a few years for a path to be 
completely revegetated and provides a more accurate picture of what's happening 
on the ground and helps data consumers track the it through the different 
states.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 02:06, Mike Thompson 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I use:
disused:highway=path/footway/etc
or
abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc

I have used that too where it really is closed via signage, but if it's just 
overgrown from lack of use, it could still be in active use.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 02:55, Andy Townsend 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Indeed - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown has some usage

I didn't know about that, usually I've just been adding description=overgrown, 
but that tag is better. It's in need of some discussion and documentation 
though to make it not subjective.

I suggest overgrown=yes would apply if you're constantly brushing against the 
vegetation (not just occasionally but to the the point that you're almost 
always in contact with the vegetation for the whole segment).

Then light if it has negligible affect on walking pace, dense if it slows you 
down considerably.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Reply via email to