I think such a router could be improved to better and safer serve their target public. I think cyclists best “vote with their feet” by choosing a router that better serves their purpose and safety. You can always return when it’s better.
I spent a bit of time on the issue trackers of graphhopper and OSRM to make them aware of sac_scale. They handled it in their pedestrian profiles, but they could not really make sense of what it actually represents. They were quite forthcoming and in the end more restrictive than I was asking for.
Somebody might tell them about mtb:scale? They still do not honour sac_scale in their bicycle profiles. Why should they - this key only for hikers? I stand corrected, this is not true. Perhaps I confused them with brouter.
1 Like
Yes, that is certainly something that should be fixed in routers. The issue is that many (/most) people don’t deliberately choose specific routers but simply use whatever the app/website they are using gives them.
1 Like
If I were OSM’s benevolent tagging dictator I would deprecate highway=path and make the full schema of paths like this:
Generally accessible paths
Constructed to a high enough standard to be easily accessible to the general population. Not overly dangerous or requiring a high skill level.
highway=footwayhighway=bridlewayhighway=cyclewayhighway=motorcycle_way(new)
Rough paths (trails)
Minimally constructed paths over potentially challenging terrain. May not be easily accessible to the general population. Enjoyed by those with appropriate skill and fitness levels.
highway=foot_trailorhighway=hiking_trail(new)highway=bridle_trail(new)highway=mountain_bike_trail(new)highway=dirt_bike_trail(new)
Pathless cross country routes
Commonly navigated routes with little to no on the ground evidence of their existence.
highway=pathless_hiking(new)
Since no such dictator exists and people would not tolerate all these path types disappearing from maps while they wait for renderers to support the new tags, perhaps a more realistic path forward might be to use path= and route= as keys instead:
path=motorcycle_waypath=foot_trailorpath=hiking_trailpath=bridle_trailpath=mountain_bike_trailpath=dirt_bike_trailroute=pathless_hiking
This would allow for dual tagging with highway=path until the new tags became popular and well supported enough. The end result would be less satisfying as we would have three path tags using the highway key (footway, bridleway, and cycleway) and five others using the path key, but at least those five wouldn’t all be jammed into one generic path value along with pathless routes as well.
Would you see the distinction between types of path= as based on predominant use, access tags, physical characteristics?
I’d see the distinction as based on predominant use, intended use, and the design of the path.
I like this line of thought, especially with the backward compatibility.
I see path= and route= as explainers (subtags) of highway=path.
It would still require some sorting out, since the on the ground practice of expecting foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes (or any combination of that and sometimes also light motorbikes) for a non-descript path, and of combined trails, does change with a new tagging scheme!
And I certainly expect highway=path to live on for a long time, with many mappers simply tagging highway=path and thinking “can be refined later”.
While I like these ideas in general, I’m not sure about this part. Generally I use highway=path because a trail has no clear purpose or design. (Or the original purpose and design, perhaps to serve long abandoned mines, is now irrelevant). It’s not unusual to hike for hours on a trail and meet nobody else. There may be no signposting. I might see some tracks that suggest MTBs have passed, or some hoofprints indicating it has been used by horses, or for moving livestock. In that situation the vagueness of highway=path matches the vagueness of the real world. I’m not sure if it would help me as a mapper to be forced to choose whether pedestrians, horse riders, or cyclists predominate.
Also, it’s a minor point, but “hiking” to me implies recreational use. I’d prefer a more neutral term that recognises that not all pedestrian users of rough trails are walking for recreation. I can think of trails where I have met more shepherds than hikers, for.example.
7 Likes
To be clear (again) those are access tags, and are independent of whether a particular way is appropriate for a particular mode of transport.
However you’re right that there are tags that help users determine how appropriate a way is (surface is probably the most widely used of these).
1 Like
This is a good point. foot_trail would fit just as well in my mind.
1 Like
I am one of the graphhopper developers and found @Hungerburg statement above. Where do you have this information from? It is simply not true, see the source at github. For ordinary bikes we exclude access for all ways tagged with a sac_scale!=hiking! And we don’t do this just recently, this code part is about 9 years old.
4 Likes
Thank you for correcting! I still found Valhalla bicycle ignore sac_scale Valhalla FOSSGIS Server Demo App – switching to “road” bike gets a shorter route. This one? OpenStreetMap
This not so much a problem, who expects to get there with the bike? A problem though when the scramble hides in shortcut from the mountain hut to the parking lot. Such made me contact OSRM once. Curiously, even Valhalla bicycle does not route there now.
PS: My correspondence with graphhopper was about via_ferratas in the foot and hike profiles, not about sac_scale. So much to the (lack of) accuracy of my statement.
PPS: Valhalla molested with this, Cycling on sac_scale tagged ways · Issue #4882 · valhalla/valhalla · GitHub
This is true for the vast majority of the US Forest Service and US Burearu of Land Management trails I have been on. They are simply paths through the woods/forest, across tundra, or through the desert. They are not any more suited for one mode of travel than another generally. Further, if you would ask a land manager (or query a database from them) “how many miles of footway do you have vs cycleways”, they could not answer, as they only have “trails.” There are some purpose built mountain bike trails, but most of them also allow - and are suitable for - foot travel and horse travel too.
2 Likes
It’s precisely for that reason we have highway=path. We should duck-tag as much as we can, but if all we can say is that it looks like a bird, we should bird-tag.
It is definitely true that there are many trails with no indication of what the predominant usage or design intent is. I would argue that these can be considered foot trails since walking is generally allowed on any trail where it is not clearly forbidden. So choosing a primary feature tag indicating “foot trail” would not be wrong. Later if it becomes clear that horses, bicycles, and/or other travel modes are also allowed, that could be added with access tags.
For trails that are managed equally for multiple uses (i.e. this information is clearly communicated by the land manager) I would also support a primary feature tag indicating a “shared use trail” if mappers felt the decision between “foot trail”, “bridle trail”, and “mountain bike trail” was impossible in these cases. This would still be better than plain old highway=path as I can’t see any mapper in good conscience tagging a pathless mountaineering route as a “shared use trail”. Though maybe they might say it is used by mountain goats as well as humans 
.
Purpose built mountain bike trails (specifically singletrack) are something I would really like to see tagged with a different primary feature tag than foot trails. Although you certainly are allowed to walk on them, they really are designed to be enjoyable for mountain biking and not so much for walking. They can wind their way back and forth and up and down in all sorts of twists and turns over lumps and bumps that are really fun for mountain bikers but kind of annoying to walk on. The design goals for a foot trail are generally to keep the grade as consistent as possible and the route at least somewhat direct so you aren’t making people walk farther than necessary to get where they are going. A mountain bike trail’s design can be directly in conflict with these goals.
3 Likes
You’ld be surprised how often foot trails are designed to make the most of a relatively small nature area.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all, and yes that’s a good point. Recreational foot trails can also wind back and forth in a loop rather than taking a direct route to a destination. However, they aren’t designed with berms, rollers, jumps, drops and other mountain bike trail features. Purpose built mountain bike trails often have a very different character than those built for walking.
Walking is often forbidden on a lot of dedicated mountain bike trails.
In my area, there are a lot of designated MTB trails. They mostly lead to some up-hill restaurant. In OSM they are all mapped highway=track, because that is what they are, forestry roads, where cycling is allowed by contract with the holders of the way. People are expected to go back and forth there and cyclists and pedestrians welcome each other.
Then there are the dedicated single-trails. The official ones also allowed by contract with the landowners. They sport signage warning walkers to not go there. This is not legally binding. They also sport signage of being one-way for cycles. Also not legally binding. They are all mapped highway=path and a plethora of attributes. Very appropriate.
Thankfully they are not mapped as cycleways. In my view highway=single_trail could do the trick much more comfortable for both mappers and users.
1 Like
I’ve not heard the term single-trail before, but I assume these trails are probably what is known as singletrack among English speaking mountain bikers. singletrack alone would probably not be a good idea for an OSM tag value because the term also can describe a single-track road or railway[1]. mountain_bike_singletrack (or mtb_singletrack if that’s too verbose) would better clarify the meaning.
Nevermind that a single-track railway has two metal tracks, and a single-track road is just wide enough for a double tracked vehicle
. ↩︎
3 Likes