RfC: Have pathless hiking routes (no trail_visibility) be some manner of related nodes instead of paths

[erutan]

@ezekielf

The discussion of node networks in this thread is very confusing. A node network is a very specific thing with very specific signage and should not be conflated with a pathless route in the wilderness. Very different situations. If what is meant is “an ordered list of nodes”, then lets say that to avoid confusion.

A related / networked set of nodes is what I thinking of, similar to how climbing has a top, bottom, and bolt node but not connected visually with a way.

An ordered list of related nodes works for me.

@ezekielf

@StC

official hiking routes that e.g. cross a large concrete pr pavement area with no “path” visible, or a rocky place, etc. All have in common that you more or less see “the other side” of the gap, you known where to go. Switching to orienteering or to a fake path would seem inappropriate in those cases.

Agreed. For small gaps in a path I see no problem with that being mapped as a highway=path. My comments are specifically about routes that are entirely or almost entirely pathless.

I’d be fine saying the only acceptable use of something with true trail_visibiilty=no is a ground truth hack to allow for routing of formal trails across small gaps. That sort of begs the question of whether trail_visibiilty=bad should exist, although it’s probably not reasonable to expect every gap in trail to be broken into a segment and labeled. I do find small segments on trail in the backcountry more useful and appropriate than paths with varying strength and visibility.

I illustrated an example here of a short patch of trail_visibiilty=good where IMO it’s not appropriate to create massively longer path to allow for routing. I also agree that these shouldn’t show up in standard routing so that kind of makes the point moot to me.