My first thought - make this a poll. On the other hand, it is way too easy, the question gives away the answer. On yet another hand, perhaps a third alternative, namely track might win the rural location.
My money quote from @n76, and that is where I come in, and perhaps @Dmytro_Klymenko
I am helped in this case because mappers are not actively trying to fool my filter: They are simply as confused as I am.
Iâm glad itâs easy for somebody. Itâs not at all obvious to me (at least if there are no signs). The one thing I would say is that the urban/rural distinction is probably not
very important. When I refer to urban/rural in this context, itâs a short cut for certain kinds of ways found mostly in population centres and other kinds of ways found more commonly outside built-up areas. It doesnât mean that I see the simple fact of being urban or rural as changing the classification.
Yes. This is the point of my previous post. Both examples could be tagged as either highway=footway or highway=path + foot=designated|yes. The meaning is the same: âa path for walkingâ. Nothing more.
From the images you canât even say they are foot paths.
Recently I was out using StreetComplete and it asked me for the surface of âthe pathâ. I was very confused as this way was clearly signed as designated for bicycle and foot. Further investigation led to learning that this is how the JOSM preset work.
The preset âDedicated cyclewayâ will make a highway=cycleway.
The preset âDedicated footwayâ will make a highway=footway.
The presets âCombined foot- and cyclewayâ and âSegregated foot- and cyclewayâ will make a highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated.
For me highway=cycleway and highway=footway just adds confusion, deprecating them would direct mappers and consumers towards handling highway=path together with other tags. But I might be ignorant of some important detail, and double checking my ignorance made me find the page on Duck tagging.
So, the path is not specifically a cycleway (path for bicycles) and not specifically a footway (path for pedestrians), itâs a combined path, and StreetComplete wants to know the surface. I donât see the problem here?
I think part of the initial confusion was the translation to the Swedish word âstigâ which is strongly connected with a path in the woods. I believe the English word path is more of both urban and non-urban.
For me a combined cycle- and footway is a highway=cycleway + foot=designated. which is clearly a bicycle centric way of thinking.
So there is ample room for confusion, I think.
As a wheelchair user, I think that some tracks marked as paths are not usable, especially Downhill MTB.
Well wheelchair=* is not connected with a traffic sign and therefore not as strict as other access tags. Though I have to admit that many path (especially in the forest and mountains) should have a wheelchair=no which they currently do not have.
Besides, as a lucky person without these restrictions, I am often not sure what is manageable with a wheelchair and what isnât. I know a person tied to a wheelchair who has mostly no problem to ride down stairs by himself and even manages to climb up to five steps upward. On the other side an electric wheelchair has much more restrictions and even assisted by two person a single curb can be a major barrier.
I understand. I have been in my wheelchair and used a couple of Grandchildren to increase the traction available on the front drive wheel, whereas a Mobility Scooter just went straight up the path without hesitation.
I, until a couple of years ago, was completely Mobile and my passion was walking in the countryside and forests. Unfortunately now, I am finding the limitations of my new mode of transport and I am starting to rely on this wonderful OSM to help me get around!!
(Stiles are the other thing I have a specific interest in!)
I agree with what you are saying. In addition many Dirt roads are not updated for understandable reasons- only a few people go down them and they are not map editors!
I ride a dirt bike as my main sport/ hobby and seek out these things all the time.
I am also a little confused as what an â alpine routeâ is as there is only â pathâ and â dirt road â available to render in this situation.
An alpine route would only be in the alps??? Surely we do not want another tag for one specific mountain range
Aah yes this is confusing, but the English word âalpineâ can refer to large mountains in general, not just specifically the Alps.
âAlpineâ may have originated in the Alps but the term is used outside of that area. At least in the US high elevation mountains, usually those that extend above the upper timberline, are described as having an alpine environment. I believe that term is used in most of the world but cannot be sure.
And there are definitely routes, some might hesitate to call them trails, that would be well described by the definition given for sac_scale=alpine_hiking in the wiki.
This reminds me of the German word âSteigâ, which connects to steep paths in the mountains. The term âPfadâ I only know from pathfinder clubs where it is used colloquially, else it reminds of poetry. Generally I think it connects to single-trail walking paths. I would be stunned if the German locale of StreetComplete used that term to refer to cycleways.
This further reminds me about my amazement, why this topic draws no attention at all from the people that use path in the sense of âshared use 2m wide paved urban infrastructureâ. I think, they are just too complacent in being right and pathless routes only a niche nobody cares about.
I guess most consumers of OSM data belong to latter group?
I get the feeling that we agree that a highway=path can vary widely in access and in physical characteristics.
If access and physical characteristics are tagged on the feature, data consumers can use the extra tags for their target groups and applications, such as maps and routing profiles.
If they donât, they are not optimally serving their users.
For highway=path without any other tags, data consumers who do use the differentiating tags, will have to decide on default values for those tags.
The access tags are easy: world wide defaults are: general access=no, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes. I would add: oneway=no.
What, if any, are sensible world wide defaults for width, height, visibility, incline/decline, smoothness, surface, various skill scales et cetera?
e.g. Could a minimum width of 50 cm and a maximum width of 200 cm be assumed, with a tendency toward the narrow end, meaning that in the absence of any width tag, a path could be rendered as 1.5 m wide, which physically allows foot, bicycle, and horse access.
e.g. Could a minimum width of 50 cm and a maximum width of 200 cm be assumed, with a tendency toward the narrow end, meaning that in the absence of any width tag, a path could be rendered as 1.5 m wide, which physically allows foot, bicycle, and horse access.
there is no minimum width, but width for unpaved ways is generally more difficult to estimate. For a path on bare ground, being just 20-30 cm wide on the ground is no problem if there is space above for the body
Does âhorseâ mean all animals which are used for riding? Camels, elephants etc.?
I was considering what would be a suitable default when width-tags are missing. This could be reflected on a map, or be considered by a router for a specific transport profile.
A default is not âwhat it can beâ, but âwhat is the best guessâ.
Would an elephant need an existing path?
While âbest guessâ might work in some situations (a blog post about how wonderful OSM coverage is, for example), but Iâd suggest that a router should only suggest a route that it knows will be OK. The access tag âbest guessesâ that you suggested above are just plain wrong in the countries I live in and visit most.
If a particular tag (such as highway=path) has such broad usage - even if you exclude frankly silly examples like the âscuba pathâ mentioned elsewhere - that it canât be relied upon for a particular mode of transport without other clarifying tags, then a router shouldnât suggest it.