Essentially we have that set already - my worry is that the Bosch router is just ignoring this tag altogether, which is why I suggested you try and bring them into the conversation here. As noted above one of the three cycle routing options on the osm.org site gets it wrong too.
I’m a member of the Data Working Group, and we fairly regularly get complaints that OSM data is “wrong” because some third-party router is ignoring something clearly tagged in the OSM data.
With “driving” I meant “biking”. A car would simply not fit on that path in width.
Concerning the fotos: no hw=steps there. But maybe barrier=log, height=0.1 could be added.
And bicycle=discouraged, hazard=dangerous_bikepath.
I’d suggest instead sticking to known keys like mtb:scale and then ensuring that data consumers are aware of them. hazard=dangerous_bikepath has failed to trouble the scorers at taginfo, so I won’t expect any router to anticipate that tag value.
I would consider splitting the way into the difficult part and the not difficult part, and then using mtb:scale=* (as others have suggested) on the difficult part (perhaps mtb:scale=3 - but difficult to tell without having ridden it). Alternately one could add mtb:scale=* to a node that is part of the way to indicated that there is just one small section of difficult trail (the wiki mentions this practice - Key:mtb:scale - OpenStreetMap Wiki). - Mike
I second this recommendation. If the height model of brouter-web isn’t completely wrong, the incline of the difficult part should be about 25% - 30%. Including the steps or roots that’s dangerous enough, even if it’s only about 50 m.
Look at https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org that provides Elevation profile for trails. This would help to identify the difficult part of the trail.
[chris66] chris66 https://community.openstreetmap.org/u/chris66
July 18Concerning the fotos: no hw=steps there. But maybe barrier=log,
height=0.1 could be added.
And bicycle=discouraged, hazard=dangerous_bikepath.
It is in Baden-Württemberg, it is less than 2 meters wide, hence it
is
illegal
to use a bicycle there.
Why not plainly bicycle=no?
It is in Baden-Württemberg, it is less than 2 meters wide, hence it
is
illegal
to use a bicycle there.
on some pictures it seems that 2m are available, but in general, to nitpick, it is just „irregular“ to ride your bike on smaller paths (in German: ordnungswidrig). Judging by the fine (35eur), it seems the legislator sees riding there a less important transgression compared to exceeding the speed by 11-15km/h inside a settlement (50eur).
Why not plainly
bicycle=no?
+1, how do we deal with ways that are around 2m wide, partially wider partially inferior? Provided you may push your bike on any path (where it is too narrow), should the tag be alternated for every section?
I’m fine with this if there is no sign which is indicating an exception.
Warning: If you bike down the not difficult part, a) you can’t see what to expect in 15 m and b) when your reach the difficult part (and are not that mountain bike hero mentioned here), you can’t get through without crashing, I say. c) There is no other way to turn after the not difficult part.
So I suggest not splitting these 20 - 30 m long path into a 15 m good and 15 m bad one, simply because that would not help anybody in any way.
Yes, but if the way is split and tagged appropriately, you will be able to see it on the map, and the app you are using should not route you over this path if you indicate your skill level is less than the difficulty of the difficult part, unless you indicate you are willing to walk. There are a lot of mountain bike trails that contain short sections that I cannot ride, I often ride what I can, and walk the rest. However, if the entire path is tagged as being difficult, I might avoid it all together.
While helpful, mtb:scale=* cannot be determined solely from an elevation profile as the underlying DEM is not precise enough. There are a lot of trail characteristics that will not show on a elevation profile that impact mtb:scale=*, such as how loose and rough the surface is, is there a smooth straight section before or after the obstacle, is there a tight turn before and after the obstacle?
If, and only if, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the path, then this is the appropriate course of action.
| tekim Mike
July 19 |
- | - |
Yes, but if the way is split and tagged appropriately, you will be able to see it on the map, and the app you are using should not route you over this path if you indicate your skill level is less than the difficulty of the difficult part, unless you indicate you are willing to walk. There are a lot of mountain bike trails that contain short sections that I cannot ride, I often ride what I can, and walk the rest. However, if the entire path is tagged as being difficult, I might avoid it all together.
+1. exactly, the same goes for other ways that are interrupted at some point, but may still be useful up to that point, even without any crossing in between. I also usually split the ways to locate the problem as accurate as I can.
If, and only if, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the path, then this is the appropriate course of action.
it’s in Baden-Württemberg where “state” law forbids riding a bicycle on ways in the forest which are narrower than 2 meters. In this case, the steep part looks narrower than 2 meters (if it even can be called a “path”), so bicycle=no seems correct for this part at least.
But then please also consider tagging width=* and source:bicycle=width; LWaldG (Wiki), to distinguish between paths that are forbidden by a sign and paths that are forbidden due to the state forest law (“Landeswaldgesetz”).
I think splitting up shirt sections for difficulty is usually discouraged. For hiking trails Difficulty rating accounts for the whole path inbetween to junctions or destinations.
For example if you have a long trail with a short but dangerous section, people might not see that tiny part and think they gonna hike a very easy trail.
of course if you have some POI (a lake, waterfall,) that could be used as a turn around point, than chopping up the path might be useful
I think it’s better to split paths if the difficulty changes. This way the user can better decide to take a few meters of difficult path or to take a detour.
I think it is up to the renderer to display a prominent warning sign if there is a short difficult section.
Wow, I’m impressed by the number of postings my original posting has triggered.
As for splitting the path into an easy and a difficult part, may I remind that, a) once I was in the difficult part, I could not stop anymore and was doomed, and b) you just can’t see that in a few meters the way gets heavily dangerous. So, for biking, I would strongly recommend to flag the “Eselspfad” as strictly not for biking. The next one going into this trap may not be as lucky as I was, and end up seriously injured, or plain dead.
Can’t it handle both? Break the trail up into sections of different types that can be rendered differently, and also tag the entire route for the max difficulty?
