How can a way represent tagging needs for both a road and a path?
If a road is used as part of a hiking trail route, should the road bear any name associated to the hiking route or should it just be handled with somoene building a route?
This stretch of forest road was tagged as a path for the general cook trail #140, a hiking trail.
I converted it back to an unclassified road (it’s double vehicle width and is maintained, just unpaved) and named it to it’s correct name. I did add the alt_name for the hiking trail the previous person tagged it as.
Should I even have even added that alt name for the hiking route that uses it?
At the east end of that segment of that way, another road goes north with a separate way for the hiking path following in the same place as the road. That doesn’t seem correct at all. Shouldn’t that just be a road, which permits foot traffic.
Seems to me this general cook trail #140 should have been built as a route consisting of different ways (roads, paths, etc). Then how does map labeling handle this though.
This is not the first time I’ve seen this. I saw this on the Arizona trail where the trail used a segment of the road and someone renamed the road to “Arizona Trail” which is a hiking route. If I rename that segment back to the road name, it serves the vehicle traffic but a hiker would not see the hiking trail name on their maps.