As a follow-up to Documenting the problems with `highway=path`, I will open the topic of listing the solution proposals for the highway=path issues.
The first post(s) will be wiki entries so please feel free to add references.
The idea here is to list (and add) concrete proposals that solve various aspects and issues in the Path discussions. I don’t think many of those mentioned in the discussions are ready for an official proposal or a vote but this way we can narrow them down.
Create new subtype tags (e.g. path=* ) that are intended to be used withhighway=path which further classify the path and provide more precise characterization. This method preserves the current support and interpretation of highway=path by data consumers and provides a gradual path forward.
In this post I’ll try to summarize (and keep up-to-date) what solution I personally would like to have.
highway/pathway=climbing instead of scramble and the likes.
Scramble is a subset, anyway, as it covers lower UIAA grades. Free climbing does not use equipment to advance but for protection only. That said, some people also climb without equipment even on higher grades (free solo). If you don’t count shoes into specialized equipment, that is.
highway=path remains for nature trails / hiking paths.
Grading system for difficulty.
Background: Trail difficulty rating system - Wikipedia
Some sort of simplified system with not that many grades. Probably 3 grades are enough, since path would be used only for actual paths and walking/hiking.
As I have voted before, eg climbing= can be used directly. There’s no need to use highway=, invent another pathway= , or argue about “climbing” vs scrambling for the categorization.
How exactly is it supposed to be used? What would that tag be added to? A path?
Edit:
Oh! I found
and now it all makes sense! Austria seems empty, not for the lack of crags but for the mess with the tags. No wonder I was confused.
Thanks for the tip! A lot of work ahead on adding sites/crags/routes with topos.
Create new subtype tags (e.g. path=*) that are intended to be used withhighway=path which further classify the path and provide more precise characterization. This method preserves the current support and interpretation of highway=path by data consumers and provides a gradual path forward (with the risk of [legacy/simple/…] data consumers not parsing these new sub-tags and interpreting highway=path as they currently do).
What these proposals seem to have in common is that because highway=path is considered too “general”, they move detail from a lower-level tag up to the key value or even the key itself (by splitting off pathway=* from highway=*).
Looking at the “bad” end of highway=path, highway=scramble and highway=mountaineering are adding the detail “this is a difficult path” to highway=path that highway=path + sac_scale=* can tell in much more detail (6 and hopefully soon 7 levels of detail). This thread similarly proposed new tags for pathless paths to express what highway=path + trail_visibility=no is also expressing.
When we try to express such information in first level tag values, we loose detail; if we want to prevent loosing that detail, we would have to introduce many more tag values. What would you call a path that’s quite difficult and not very visible, that you could also tag with highway=path + sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking + trail_visibility=intermediate? We would need 7*6=42 different first level tag values to express the same detail that highway=path + sac_scale=* + trail_visibility=* can. And we would need to survey the path and decide on its difficulty and visibility first before we can map it.
A highway=path is suitable for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and horse riders. If either is not allowed, we show this with access tags. Neither a scramble nor a mountaineering “path” are suitable for bicyclists or horse riders, so they shouldn’t be tagged as a highway=path.
This is a false dillemma. Nobody wants to abolish those secondary tags. They would still be useful. The same way we still have surface for those 21 (I am told) highway= values for roads for cars.
It would just allow consumers to be lazier about stuff they do not care about. I can imagine a hiking map would render path and scramble and pathless the same way if they all had trail_visibility and sac_scale set. However, if they did not or for a consumer not interested in hiking, there would be better defaults or easier way for them not to show such pathways at all.
The car argument has been raised already. I’ll just illustrate a bit further.
A path, 20m wide, asphalt, 6 lanes, one-way, car=designated, no bicycles, no pedestrians, fee, good visibility, low inclination. Oh, wait, that’s a motorway, isn’t it?
Everything can be described with secondary tags. We just need lines, they don’t even need to be paths. Maybe they are rivers? It should be clear from another few dozen secondary tags.
I’m pretty sure there’s less difference between several types of roads (primary, secondary, anyone?) than there is between different types of paths. I mean, you have for sure seen the images at
We certainly don’t need main tags for everything. But what are the criteria?
I agree that, at the moment, we are mixing the visibility with surface, with width and inclination, and trying to add some sort of difficulty scale (7 levels?! That is way too many!) in the new tag names.
Let’s then try to come up with some sensible criteria to apply. We all can instinctively tell that there’s a big difference between a stroll path next to a river and an UIAA level III scramble. But we seem unable to define it properly.
It seems your “Documenting” thread has become yet another discussion thread. A sprawling topic where no-one can keep an overview.
Presumably OP has some semblance of overview, so If OP could sum up the stated problem(s) in some bullet points (in the first post), and then list the concrete (viable) solution suggestions.
It looks like you haven’t even read the original post. All this is explained there. The solutions are placed in the first post, which is a wiki entry that everyone can edit. I add what I run into but others can and should link or write down what they think solves some of the problems. The problems are documented in a separate, linked, thread. Again, as a wiki containing links to numerous posts, threads, and articles that explain it in more detail.
People are, of course, welcome to provide thoughts and opinions. That is what this is all about. We all learn something and can adapt the system better (hopefully).
I take your point, but the post is a list of links to other discussions with many replies in them . That’s why I was looking for some kind of summary from someone who’s read them all already. I am interested in seeing a result on the topic of path. I hope something comes of it.
Understandable. I think we’re still a couple of steps behind that. I wanted to try to narrow down to it. The suggestions are many. Some are not concrete proposals and I’m not sure if even their authors still hold those opinions after all the discussions. That’s why perhaps it would be useful to put as many, discuss them again, and keep narrowing and improving the list of solutions.
I.e. there’s a point in the statement that a line could, at the same time, be pathless, and a scramble, and a mountaineering route, and perhaps an easy climbing route.
That, however, is no different to a path that is a walking path and a cycling path at the same time. So, that discussion will be interested to follow at the moment.
I think the main post will keep improving as the suggestions come in.
The more detailed first-level values for paths we have are distinct by the legal access limitations they imply (a highway=footway is a path legally designated for pedestrians, etc.). This can be determined easily, because an access limitation is there or not there (there is a sign or not, a law or not, etc.). For paths with 1 access limitation, we have more detailed tag values, while for paths with no or more than 1 access limitation (combined cycle&foot paths) we have only highway=path that fits. This can’t be done for suitability, because suitability exists in many shades of gray. What is suitable for one person and transportation mode may not be suitable for another, depending on skills, level of preparation, etc. That’s what we have our rating systems for: they provide information that helps an individual to decide for himself whether a way is suitable for him/her.
I think the main driver for wanting to distinguish “bad” paths from normal “suitable” paths is safety. We don’t want map users to end up in trouble and having to be rescued because they used a path that’s not suitable for them. We could do that by deciding which level of difficulty of a path is no longer suitable and safe for the general public, and tag paths that are more difficult with a different tag value. We may decide that paths more difficult than sac_scale=mountain_hiking are unsafe for the general public, and tag them highway=mountaineering. Or we may have a bit more confidence in their skills, and tag paths more difficult than sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking as highway=scramble. I foresee a long discussion on what the cut off value should be…
I am wondering how that would work out in practice. Suppose you are armchair mapping, and see what looks like a path on satellite imagery that’s in the mountains, goes through what looks like a rocky area, and is quite steep on the topo map. How would you map such a path? How would you determine if it’s beyond the cut off value we agreed, or not? You may decide that such paths shouldn’t be mapped at all until surveyed. And that paths shouldn’t be armchair-mapped at all, because there’s always the risk that an easy-looking path contains a 5m rappel down that doesn’t show on any image or topo map. So you would only map it after a survey. Suppose the survey shows that the path is sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, so you could map it as highway=scramble. But then why not map it as highway=path + sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking? This carries more information, because it shows it’s a scramble, but an easy one. So what’s the need for having highway=scramble, then?
Well, but that’s exactly how it works with roads: a road too narrow for a car is a path, because it’s unsuited for cars. Same goes for sidewalks: A sidewalk with 20cm width is not a sidewalk.
And that’s exactly why more top-level highway-tags would help here.