How to Distinguish Single Tracks from Hiking Trails?

[julcnx]

@_MisterY

Agree. I really think that subdividing further, something like this:

would solve a lot of problems.

(source: Alpinist routes marked as footpaths - #117 by Hungerburg)

Edit: Path is a good default for “wide path” but the rest would need new tags. Most of those have been listed by supsup in Pathway=* for ways not used by or intended for cars.

Edit 2: Just a remark - on the paper maps, a path/route does not change type every 20 meters but remains fairly constant for the whole “section”, i.e. between two junctions with other paths. Just like roads.

In Thailand, we’ve faced conflicts among mappers wanting to visually distinguish trails that are only used by foot (impassable for 2-wheeled vehicles) from those regularly used by mountain bikes or motorcycles (horses are rare here).

Some trails are simply naturally impassable or too dangerous due to extreme gradients, slopes, or surface.

Originally, this was handled by tagging impassable trails as highway=footway and others as highway=path. However, using highway=footway sparked some controversy. Without a surface value, many renderers display these paths as paved. Additionally, most believe that highway=footway should be reserved for built pathways commonly found in urban settings.

Our Thailand wiki now recommends using highway=path with difficulty tags like smoothness, mtb:scale, and sac_scale… Some mappers have adopted this approach, while others may not be familiar with the appropriate scales to use. Instead, they rely on legal access tags like horse=no and bicycle=no, which creates issues since there are no default access restrictions on paths in Thailand. This makes it difficult to know if a restriction is actually based on a physical sign, such as in national parks.

When I know a path has no legal restrictions, I usually omit the access tags and use smoothness=impassable. This keeps routers from directing bicycles or motorcycles there, but unfortunately, few renderers recognize this distinction.

Could introducing a different top-level tag to distinguish between these types of paths help resolve mapping and rendering issues?

Choosing the right tag can be subjective and challenging to verify without visuals like MTB or motorcycle traces, but I believe this could make things easier for mappers.

Your thoughts?

[_MisterY]

I thought you would pick up on this as it addresses exactly the questions you had before.
To me, this makes sense in most cases. But it does not only address the width. I think this implies suitability for certain non/vehicular access, as well. While tracks (double and single) are suitable for wheel travel (not counting wild MTB exhibitions here), the paths and up are too narrow/unsuitable for that.
From what I’ve seen in practice, hiking in Austria, the distinction between a Fußweg and a Steig is already pretty drastic. And Spuren would scare most people away. Those would include quite a few of the “pathless paths” from the other thread. To the point where I would agree that the remainder does not need to be marked on a map.
Just my $0.02.

Edit: single-track-road seems suitable?

[bradrh]

In the US, single track is synonymous with trail, so I don’t think that term will work well.

[tekim (Mike)]

@bradrh

In the US, single track is synonymous with trail, so I don’t think that term will work well.

Agree! I would consider almost anything that is too narrow for a 2-track vehicle to be “singletrack.” For reference, by “2-track vehicle” I mean something about the width of a standard highway vehicle (although may be modified, or even purpose-built for extreme conditions), which leaves two tracks (one from the left wheels and one from the right wheels). There are going to be some edge cases, such as ATVs, which leave two tracks (and have four or six wheels), but are not as wide as a standard highway vehicle.

[julcnx]

@tekim

Agree! I would consider almost anything that is too narrow for a 2-track vehicle to be “singletrack.”

So how would you differentiate them from a hiking only trail ? e.g. a scrambling route

[tekim (Mike)]

@julcnx

So how would you differentiate them from a hiking only trail ? e.g. a scrambling route

foot=yes/designated
motor_vehicle=no
bicycle=no
horse=no

“hiking only trails” are not necessarily physically different than trails that allow mountain bikes, horses, and motorcycles. “Hiking only” is a legal access restriction. There may be some cases where the trail is simply too difficult for a particular mode of travel, and those can be indicated with such tags as mtb:scale=6+ (e.g.) if access is legally allowed.

[supsup]

Pictures would be helpful.

I am tending more and more to a solution to start requiring a secondary tag, in this case path=trail path=multi_purpose. Trail is singletrack mostly used and suitable for walking, multipurpose is a way that is suitable and used for all sorts of non-cars. I think these subtags would in practice be used for different things in different parts of the world, but that is ok, so is highway=trunk.

[Map_HeRo (Mikke)]

@julcnx

Could introducing a different top-level tag to distinguish between these types of paths help resolve mapping and rendering issues?

I don’t think so because there is no reliable definition which could be used as a base to distinguish between trails passable or impassable for bikes. Which MTB or moto cross bike skills would you presume for your evaluation if a certain track is impassable for those? You know that some people are able to bike on trails which other people cannot even scramble by foot.

As others said before I believe the only way to handle this dilemma is to describe the physical attributes of a given trail or path as precisely as possible with the tags available for this purpose.

@julcnx

Some mappers have adopted this approach, while others may not be familiar with the appropriate scales to use.

Sure, but this problem is not limited to the scales available for trails. If some mappers are not ready to catch up with the appropriate tags they will possibly also not know how to distinguish in between a "foot only trail’ and a “multi purpose trail” (considering the above said).

Relying on an individual assessments if a trail or path is “foot only” or “multi purpose” will not solve the problem for sure.

[Hungerburg (Asa Hundert)]

The map legend you showed in top post is differentiating mostly on width. Width is an established tag. I know, width is hard to tell when surface=ground or so. Still, specifying width, I do not think that will help in your case.

PS: There is lobbying for the routers available on OSM.org to consume smoothness, at least in cycle profiles, which none of them did/does - Consider smoothness in default bicycle profile · Issue #4935 · valhalla/valhalla · GitHub

[_MisterY]

@Map_HeRo

physical attributes of a given trail or path as precisely as possible with the tags available for this purpose.

Can anyone with this opinion clarify why are 10 different top-level tags needed for roads, when witdh can be read from a sub tag?

[dieterdreist (Martin Koppenhöfer)]

actually if “road type” is read strictly, there are still at least 16 different types not 10, and this is not counting paths, footways and similar. Almost none of them imply “width” or are related to “width”, the only notable exception being the distinction of track and path.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@julcnx

Your thoughts?

One immediate thought is “what do you mean by ‘single track’?”. That’s a word that has a meaning to mountain bikers, but I suspect you don’t mean that - the map legend quoted at the top shows it as a translation of “Karrenweg”, which emphasises the carriage of goods. Going back a few years this would have been by horse, so perhaps somewhat analagous to the origins of an English bridleway. However, I suspect that trying to use bridleway for these in Thailand would only cause more confusion, so I wouldn’t suggest that.

With regard to “having to add 3 tags rather than 1” perhaps editor presets might help here. Many (most?) editors can already a default a bunch of tags based on what the user has chosen and prompt for other values.

[julcnx]

@SomeoneElse

“what do you mean by ‘single track’?”

I meant a trail that is known to be possible on a MTB and dirt bike.

[tekim (Mike)]

@julcnx

I meant a trail that is known to be possible on a MTB and dirt bike.

We already have tags for that, bicycle/motorcycle=yes, mtb:scale=*. Also, there are a lot of features that are ridable (legally and practically) by mountain bikers and motorcyclists that are not “single tracks” in the common meaning of the phrase. These are wide enough to be considered highway=track in OSM. Many of these can be quite challenging to ride despite their wide width. It is also legal in many cases to drive a two-track vehicle on them. However, one may need a modified vehicle to do so, or at least a stock vehicle that has been designed for such conditions, e.g. the old (2001 and earlier model years) Jeep Cherokee XJs.

[Hungerburg (Asa Hundert)]

@tekim

We already have tags for that, bicycle/motorcycle=yes

Somebody should move the Wiki page access=* to accessibility=*.

[julcnx]

@tekim

We already have tags for that, bicycle/motorcycle=yes,

The tags bicycle=yes/no and motorcycle=yes/no are legal access tags, not indicators of suitability or feasibility. In Thailand, there’s no default restriction on highway=path, so motorcycle=yes and bicycle=yes are generally implied.

It’s understandable why some mappers use these tags this way—it’s simpler than navigating the complexities of tags like mtb:scale or smoothness. However, repurposing legal access tags for passability doesn’t benefit anyone.

[tekim (Mike)]

@julcnx

The tags bicycle=yes/no and motorcycle=yes/no are legal access tags

I fully understand that, but you conveniently left off part of my post, “mtb:scale”.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

The tag practicability has some usage. It’s not worldwide, but might be worth a look at.

[Map_HeRo (Mikke)]

“some usage” is kind of understatement, isn’t it? And it’s well worth to have a look at. Could be a useful compromise for those who do not want to engage themselves in tagging sac/mtb:scale. And with 17K uses it should have it’s own wiki page imo.