Discussion about deleting the highway samples page

General talk Tagging general discussion
1

Correct. So it is extremely confusing, looking at examples of secondary, tertiary, and unclassified roads at Highway tagging samples/out of town - OpenStreetMap Wiki, to tell them apart, other than width.
If there is some other, implied, difference, I’m sure it could apply to paths, as well.

Also, according to the opening of the wiki article on Highway tag,

The key highway=* is the main key used for identifying any kind of road, street or path. The value of the key helps indicate the importance of the highway within the road network as a whole.

probably means that the highway=* tag should be appropriate for any type of path?

2 Likes
2

maybe this page should simply be deleted? As physical aspects are not the determining factor to establish the highway class, showing pictures of examples is maybe more misleading than helpful?

2 Likes
3

Maybe. But actually saying what differentiates them would be even more helpful.

4

That is so priceless for showing why path is just such a bad tag :-D. I do not get how anyone expects an average mapper to agonize over so many subtags to classify a path. Mapping needs to be fun at least a bit, otherwise people will not do it, deciding on all of those is a torture. I only put sac_scale and trail_visibility for paths and that already is annoying. And I still refer to the wiki from time to time when I am not sure about classification - no way I am going enter 5 or 6 subtags just to classify one path.

3 Likes
5

Then wait for the next mapper. Mapping is also iterative, someone adds a path, another person refines it afterwards, and so on.
If people bother to “agonize” drawing the geometry of a new path, it surely isn’t expecting too much that they take the additional 15 seconds to add 3 tags rather than 1?

4 Likes
6

there are already quite some pages about highway classification, this one is just a collection of example photos, so repeating what differentiates them seems would just be repeating the same arguments again.

4 Likes
7

As has been stated many times before, this does not really seem to be hapenning. The vast majority of hiking trails do not have these filled and I think it would be hard to find somebody who finds these tags useful to fill (plus those parametres change frequently).

1 Like
8

Personally, I have a tendency to go on longer hikes through sometimes varied terrain. I don’t bother keeping track of the other attributes because I’m not there for the purpose of mapping – I’m enjoying nature, perhaps also with friends or loved ones.

However, I always record the hike with my GPS watch. Updating trails is something I do afterwards, in my spare time after downloading the GPS trace and identifying whether I hiked on trails that were unmapped. I map what I can from memory, GPS data and overhead imagery. For the most part, I don’t bother to add other tags, but I’m happy when other people do. Thankfully, the map welcomes my edits which add paths where there otherwise are none. If, for example, other mappers harassed me for not adding additional tags, I would just stop mapping paths entirely. So I don’t think it’s fair to complain about the level of detail that people choose to spend their time mapping.

In any case, there are other cues (land cover, topography, water features, etc) which dictate what to expect on a given trail. In my area, you will encounter mostly flat land with narrow dirt trails, bugs, and minor water crossings. The value of additional tagging is tiny compared to the massive value added in adding the path at all. I choose to focus my limited energy on missing features rather than refinement and that’s OK.

8 Likes
9

So I don’t think it’s fair to complain about the level of detail that people choose to spend their time mapping.

I was not complaining, the question I was replying to was whether we should have finer grained highway types or rely on attributes. If you don’t remember what kind of surface or width or similar a certain path had, you cannot do either, so your choice is between not mapping the missing path or map it without detailed information (and I agree that mapping it is preferable)

Generally, as I have stated before, I would support adding (few) more highway types for non motorized traffic, but this wouldn’t obsolete detailed way attributes nonetheless.
I believe, typologically a shared pedestrian bicycle path, built with a paved surface like a road (similar), is quite different from an unpaved path in the “wilderness” (actual or perceived), and we could distinguish it at the top level. The same on the other end, scrambles (you need to use hands) could get a different tag.

10

I agree that this page should simply be deleted or at least the motorway examples segregated. Highway classifications are about things like importance and connectivity (without getting into the deeper country-by-country discussions). One cannot simply look at a road and say "oh, this is a trunk or a primary or a secondary or whatever)

2 Likes
11

I agree to the deletion of the wiki page Highway tagging samples/out of town, too. I place a delete proposal on the wiki page.

The wiki page has a large overlap with the general Key:highway page. I don’t see the benefit the samples’ page is intended to add. Instead, duplication supports contradicting information. For additional tags, we have plenty of other pages on the wiki: lanes, surface etc. They are mentioned on Key:highway as well.

2 Likes
12

I guess, all that this says is:

Path is the least important road, route, way, or thoroughfare on land which connects one location to another and has been paved or otherwise improved, including by mere trampling by a sufficient number of humans, to allow travel in some way, including by motorised vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders, and others" [c.f.]

PS: Not being motorist, that is why I find the idea of pathway=* so intriguing, as a new top-level-key, that is. We just lack some clever values, I do not think primary, secondary, … will do.

4 Likes
13

what would be the distinction/definition? Could it coexist with highway on the same object?

14

For a long (several years!) transitionary period, yes. Eventually, all highway=path/footway/bridleway/cycleway [I think there is nothing else that is estabilished) would migrate to pathway.

Unfortunately, I think it has low chance of passing because we are supposed to add width to everything instead :-/. Would be worth a try anyway.

1 Like
15

is the width the relevant criterion? So there could be highway=footway which aren’t suitable to be tagged as pathway=footway while ultimately those suitable for pathway=footway should have the highway tag removed, is this the idea?

16

I am not advocating for adding width to everything. The criterion should be functional, I am for duck-tagging.

Edit: In my opinion, all ‘highway=footway’ should become overtime ‘pathway=footway’ (and be only paved/udually urban)

1 Like
17

I don’t care much for ‘pathway’ (would prefer path, route, or trail) but I definitely support this option over adding width to all objects. Not only will that never happen, it’s also not the discriminant attribute at “our” end of the spectrum

18

I agree. Historically, roads developed between points that needed traffic/communication. They followed the areas that people used to cross, combining the (shortest) length, (good) conditions, and general suitability of the terrain for the mode of transport. So, naturally, “primary” roads developed in conditions that allowed for wider, flatter, and paved roads to develop.
Very similar happens with paths. Paths in flat areas, even at high altitude, will generally have a lower SAC scale, and be more accessible than those on steep, exposed, or craggy terrain. Following, more people will use the ones that are easier to access, making them higher in priority, whichever way we measure it.
Width is just an indication of the path use and the terrain that allows for it, in the first place.
Karrenweg presents something that is wide enough for a small cart, or a wheelbarrow, and allows for its wheel(s) to turn continuously.

I think legal access, as well as the possibility to get somewhere (i.e. getting on a T6 mountaineering track with a MTB, or getting onto a motorway by foot), is not what the map represents. The map/GIS shows the communication lines based on some criteria that have developed organically.
Hence, I think the “width-based” (although it is really not) division from that map legend is a good start. Although having a narrow path is possible on the flat, low grounds, it will be such only if the path is blocked by bushes or other obstacles. Normally, it will be wide, possibly paved, if enough people use it. The width probably represents what a path can be used for. At least it did at the time when there was a limited number of vehicles and other equipment.
We should also not go too detailed. Hence, I really see a few options on the legend as enough. “Wide path” would be a regular path:

image
image450×600 94 KB

I think this is something most people would think of when they hear the term “path”.

“Narrow path”, Steig, would be something like

image
image800×522 78.4 KB

and then “Traces”, Spuren, would cover the rest, like

image

This, basically, covers the “pathless paths”. The routes that are used for communication but have no visible path, only traces (markers, footprints, cairns). These are not open areas on which it is possible to walk, which don’t need to have a way drawn on them, anyway.

The other sub-categories would be there, that are not strictly path. I wonder if Via Ferratas should move here.
Karrenweg, or “single-track” would cover the upper end, where it is possible to ride a bike relatively normally (average person/bike), or push a wheelbarrow, scooter. This includes a combination of width, smoothness, visibility, etc.
And we should perhaps strive to have longer stretches marked as one type, not change it every 5 meters. “Longer” being from junction to junction, probably, or at least at some “significant” spots, i.e. going from grassy part onto rocky terrain or wherever the path changes characteristics considerably, acknowledging that it is not a precise science and doesn’t have to be within a meter of distance.

Edit: The names are just a reference, not a concrete suggestion.
Also, I’ve used mostly images from the mountainous areas but that is not a limiting factor. It could be anywhere. Hope you get the idea.

Edit 2: Perhaps a general guide could state something like “take the average of the nearest 20-50m, both ways)” to decide on the tag. If there are very narrow points on an otherwise wide path, mark it as a node, indicating the issue.

1 Like
19

In light of recent political development, I’d say screw highway=*. This would mark a clear break from highway and a beautiful new world of path=*. Make Path great again!

20

Secession!

1 Like