I would like to point out this thread: Distinguish via_ferrata as sport build just for the sake of them from via_ferratas that are parts of
where there was quite some resistance to distinguish ways made for fun and ways that actually go somewhere.
Where does that leave hiking paths? Hiking routes across asphalt roads? Jogging?
Do we need to decide where the distinction between driving for sports/fun vs driving for necessities is?
Interesting find. I would actively discourage the use of this tag and keep it to sports=climbing, which seems more established.
I regard sport as a secondary tag, only describing which sport(s) is the facility forā¦ and Wiki supports that view:
A sport=* should normally also be associated with a suitable physical feature where it is performed; often this is leisure=pitch or leisure=track although other surfaces or features are sometimes appropriate, for example natural=beach
ā¦but then, it goes on to say:
Climbing routes and highway=via_ferrata have their own tagging.
ā¦and the former mentions combinations with natural=cliff, building=yes, natural=rock and natural=stone, as well as leisure=sports_centre, but also implies it could be standalone (which, again, I dislike).
Unless you find an asphalt road thatās built for hiking or jogging only, I donāt think you will ever have the urge to call them a hiking-/jogging-only track.
But yes, it is kind of a grey area in some regards, so I would deliberately exclude recreational āpathsā from āsports onlyā tracks. Do you know of any hiking paths/routes that are solely for hiking, and not used for forestry, agricultural or other needs?
We didnāt seem to have problems distinguishing highway=raceway or the current leisure=tracks from a road or path, so Iām confident, we will be able to in the future, should other sports be added to it.
Yes, this is completely non-intuitive, counter to other tag standards, and ultimately confusing.
I am currently mapping a bunch of climbing locations but am utterly confused how to add them to the map. At the moment I am only interested at the level of a crag (a rock, face, side of a mountain) but, as you note, there is not much that can be used for that. Iād need to use a cliff or another natural element, which is often not there, or there are many. This is due to the fact that a climbing=crag is a relation and not an element. I donāt know where the actual routes are nor do I care, at the moment. That will come later. So, I use placeholder nodes for crags.
I agree that leisure=pitch or leisure=track would be more appropriate. I wish we can sort out the mess rather than contribute to it.
Yes, many. Thereās not much agriculture in the mountains and the forestry uses purpose-built track roads. The rest are hiking paths, maintained and signposted by the alpine clubs. I see no other purpose. Nobody lives on the mountain anymore. Itās all about recreation (and delivering some goods to the huts serving hikers).
At least in Austria.
On that note, hello everyone, hereās your periodic reminder that golf cart paths are not for through travel:
1 Like
To me, thatās something that has to be solved via access-tags, and not unique to golf cart paths 
2 Likes
In seriousness, to North Americans, bike paths, footpaths, and golf cart paths are all kinds of recreational path, while bike trails, hiking trails, and bridle trails are all kinds of recreational trail. Some of these paths and trails can be used for other purposes as well, and youāll love what weāve done to the English language:
But for the most part, highway=cycleway is for recreation by default, not even commuting or doing errands. Whether highway=path represents an urban shared use path or a backcountry trail, itās for recreation too. Otherwise weād probably tag it as highway=track or highway=service.
There are a lot of things integrated in the highway-network but are not highway. Take all the aerialway=*, route=ferryā¦
Somehow itās the aim of this discussion, isnāt it? Differentiate which ways can be used carelessly by ordinary people and which not. Separating āmain purpose is to get somewhereā and āhave fun/do sports (aka you need to prepare for it)ā at least would work out.
This is pretty much expected in wealthy countries, but definitely doesnāt reflect a big part of the world.
3 Likes
I guess hiking trails should simply be excluded, because it will also be close to impossible to know whether they are used purely for recreational hiking. In fact, it doesnāt even make sense to separate them from a generic highway=path, because you donāt need a special skill, or equipment to use them, and you donāt run into any dangers using them.
Maybe in USA? This is not really applicable in Poland, and likely in Europe in general.
5 Likes
Thatās a slippery slope, I think. When scrambling, Iām usually also āgetting somewhereā - Iām reaching the peak. Sports, on the other hand, are normally done by moving on a round track (not getting anywhere?) or playing at a sports pitch.
The paths Iāve seen so far were used for getting water, hiking, hunting, taking animals to pastures, wildlife. In various combinations.
So, yes, back to the drawing board - what do we want to separate and to what degree? The answer becomes much harder if we compare to roads, because the differences there seem almost insignificant in comparison.
So far we have: purpose, intention, difficulty, physical appearance, + all the other sub-tags available on path, such as surface, inclination, roughness, visibility, access, priority, etc.
1 Like
and they are already covered by relations.
I was referring to the individual paths that make up the route. Although trail, path, route, track is all just being mixed up a bit in the context.
1 Like
Yes, as I said in the post, I was talking about North America (or at least the U.S. and Canada). Obviously this is not the case everywhere.
Bike trails for commuting do exist but are somewhat rare. Sidepaths are more common in cities where there are lots of bike commuters, but I donāt think people get confused when they get called recreational paths too. Itās an umbrella term, not a situation where you point to a particular patch of asphalt and say, āThatās recreational!ā
Moreover, not every trail is for hiking per se, but a stroll through the woods is still recreation if not sport.
I donāt think this is true in the USA either.