foot:conditional=no @ snow halte ich grundsätzlich nicht für richtig. Wir haben hier ebenfalls solche Strecken die im Winter bei entsprechender Schneemenge als Loipe für Langlaufski benutzt werden. Allerdings erst ab einer gewissen Menge Schnee und einer gewissen Zeit das es sich rentiert die Strecke entsprechend zu präparieren.
Das heißt die Strecke ist erst für Fußgänger gesperrt wenn die Strecke entsprechend präpariert ist und nicht bereits beim ersten Schnee.
Und hast du einen anderen Vorschlag?
Ich hab 
foot:conditional = no @ (when_signed) Das wäre dann exakt!
@Matija_Nalis If I understood correctly, this is not about dangerous paths, this is about people destroying the grooming.
1 Like
Oh, sorry, English: IMO when_signed or when_piste_groomed is of course precise, but just like a description or note, because routers could never use it (while I am still hoping that some day they might be using weather data)
ja, dann wären wir ja wieder bei no @ (when_piste _groomed). Klar, das ist richtiger als @ snow, aber dann kann man es auch gleich als description/note machen, weil es wirklich nicht auszuwerten ist. (Ich bin ja immer noch der Meinung, dass für Wetterdaten immerhin die theoretische Möglichkeit besteht, dass ein Router sie mal einbezieht)
I could have been more accurate.
piste:type=hike is the established tag for ‘winter hiking’ and snowshoeing. This is used on ways and/or relations that are signposted for these particular purpose. piste:type=nordic;hike is already used when pistes are specifically shared between nordic skiers and pedestrian (dual-use or multi-activity pistes).
Some mappers also use two relations sharing the same members, one piste:type=hike, one piste:type=nordic. This can be in addition to normal highway tags, but also for ways trough forest or meadows that are not there in summer. piste:type=hike clearly indicates that pedestrian are welcome.
We could, if we want to, document on the wiki that piste:type=nordic imply a default foot:conditionnal=discouraged@when_piste_groomed except for the two mapping patterns above.
That doesn’t prevent adding other foot:conditionnal=*, but I think we can agree that preventing a pedestrian walking on a piste with an OSM-based app that would process that tag is a highly hypothetical scenario.
For the record, Opensnowmap.org router do use piste:type=hike for routing, but it does so for every piste:type=*.
1 Like
Documenting on the wiki is fantastic 
. I suppose at the end of the day it is down to the hiker to look out the window to check whether there is snow. And down to map/routing apps to warn that there is a piste so to expect closure for pedestrians in winter.
Meiner Meinung nach müsste der Router die Daten der Tourismus Info auslesen können. Da steht bei uns wann die Langlaufloipen gespurt und präpariert sind.
So etwas wird vermutlich kaum ein Router können. Freitext unter description mit Link zur Tourist Info mehr fällt mir nicht ein.
So schade es ist.
1 Like
Genau genommen gibt es hier ja verschiedene Probleme. Zum einen dürfen die Loipen nicht begangen, werden damit sie nicht zerstört werden. Zum anderen sind andere Wege gegebenenfalls überhaupt nicht begehbar wenn zu viel Schnee liegt. Wann das eintritt, lässt sich kaum automatisiert in ein Routing einfügen. Was sich aber benutzen lässt ist, dass eine Loipe für Fußgänger freigegeben ist bzw ein Weg bei Schnee entsprechend präpariert wird. (Piste:grooming=hike) ich glaube mehr brauchen wir nicht erfassen Rest gegebenenfalls in den Kommentar (note).
I’m not familiar with that specific location, but I can understand it can be problematic if there are no alternative routes at all for pedestrians there. I’d always take both the availability of alternate routes without this problem, as well as conflict potential (i.e. clear visibility or the track, relative speed and maneuverability of parties involved in potential conflicts, etc). If it is horizontal-only, and speeds of skiers are not exceeding those of pedestrians by much with good visibility for hundreds of meters at least, then the possibility of the accident is much less of a problem than if skier goes downhill and trees and angles obscure the view.
However even when low accident probability there might be road-rage problems (I see that with pedestrians and bicycles, even when both are moving at less then 10km/h, when one use the surface use for other, there are often conflicting situation, which would be best avoided).
of course, if it is not about pedestrians only (e.g. other types of traffic are allowed too), then one should use access + access:conditional=* instead of more specific foot and foot:conditional. I were assuming other tags which are always in effect (like highway=track + motor_vehicles=no + bicycles=no or even better more generic access=no etc. to already be present on the way). I’d also use more generic ski=* unless it is explicitly signed that only some types of skiing are allowed and other forbidden.
Opensnowmap is however dedicated to people skiing (and similar). Regular pedestrian routers will likely not know anything about piste:type=*, so they would ignore it (and as I understand it, the main issues of this thread is exactly that regular pedestrians might be mislead on those pistes in the winter, when they should not be; not about informing skiers which probably already know not to go skiing when there is no snow 
)
Yes, I understood this thread being primarily about former problem. For the latter (indicate danger of too much snow), I’d use some hazard=* tag.
1 Like
One additional tag you might want to put in (in addition to other, whichever you decide to use) would be seasonal=yes. That would apply both to pedestrians and skiiers, and might give them warnings (depending on the router, of course) that it might not always be possible to use. (more specific values for the tag are problematic in this specific case, and what is allowed in winter for one use, is forbidden in winter for other use)
1 Like