Tagging an informal path that is steep, rocky and unsuitable for any form of wheeled access

[Dmytro_Klymenko]

There is this informal path in my area that OsmAnd is constantly routing me through when using my bike both uphill and downhill.

My goal is to tag it such that OsmAnd stops routing me there. I’ve considered a few options, but none of them seem exactly approriate:

• bycicle=no is more about legal signage, but this being an informal path, there can be no signage to speak of;
• incline tags also seem to be more about actual signage;
• smoothness=impassible implies that there used to be a road, but this was always a pedestrian-only path from the looks of it;
• mtb_scale=6 doesn’t seem appropriate either as it would imply that the way is part of a trail, which it is not.

Is there a more appropriate tag?

[tekim (Mike)]

That looks perfect for an expert mountain biker. mtb_scale=* is appropriate. mtb_scale is not only for formal trails but informal ones as well. You might want to also add informal=yes, although I am not sure it will impact routing.

[ezekielf (Zeke Farwell)]

From the photo it looks to me like smoothness=very_bad|horrible could be appropriate too.

[sbre]

incline does not require signage, and in this case it seems to contribute significantly to the difficulty.

[osmuser63783]

bicycle=no doesn’t always require signage: as long as it’s actually forbidden (and not just impractical) to ride a bike there, you can map it.

Smoothness also doesn’t imply that there used to be a road, it’s perfectly fine to use on narrow paths (with roller blades, racing bikes, scooters, dirt bikes, mountain bikes, … in mind).

[_MisterY]

Some are of the opinion that bicycle=no is perfectly appropriate for inaccessible paths, even though the access is allowed:

Alpinist routes marked as footpaths: A poll!

Outright impossible to go there on a bike would be bicycle=no, same as if it were illegal. If it depends on skills, gear, type of vehicle and conditions, other tags should be used to indicate the possibilities. Same for foot access and horse access. If none of these can use it, it’s not a path!

I would tend to disagree but I don’t ride bikes on such paths. I do walk on them frequently, though.

[Peter_Elderson]

IF it is outright IMPOSSIBLE to ride the path, I think bicycle= no is justified.
If it can be done, then it’s (if we agree on the default) bicycle=yes, and physical characteristics/scale tags should be used to indicate limitations, required skills, etc.

Or use highway=footway, which defaults to bicycle=no.

[_MisterY]

@Peter_Elderson

IF it is outright IMPOSSIBLE to ride the path, I think bicycle= no is justified.

I understand your emphasis but “if” and “impossible” really depend on the rider, I believe.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

At the risk of sounding like a very broken record, bicycle is an access tag. I can think of plenty of places were cycling is legally allowed (but not very practical) - many public bridleways in England and Wales for example - and bicycle=no is not appropriate there.

[Peter_Elderson]

@SomeoneElse

places were cycling is legally allowed (but not very practical)

That typically depends on bike type and skills, so nowhere near impossible.

[dieterdreist]

while I agree, there are definitely ways where cycling is physically impossible (e.g. narrow passage between buildings where width is not suffient for bicycle width with handlebars or pedals).
E.g.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@dieterdreist

where width is not suffient for bicycle width with handlebars or pedals).

A small child on a unicycle would have no problem with that

More seriously, clearly some sort of width tag (and maybe steps) is appropriate there. Here are some more steps with an “official legal right of way on a bicycle”.

[Woazboat]

/s

[dieterdreist]

A small child on a unicycle would have no problem with that

While I would question it (usually they are not stable enough), assuming for a moment it were true, these aren’t considered vehicles in my countries (but playing equipment).

Apart from this,

[tekim (Mike)]

@dieterdreist

these aren’t considered vehicles in my countries (but playing equipment).

There is a sport called mountain unicycling (muni)[0] where adults (and some younger folks) ride unicycles over terrain usually ridden by mountain bikers. The vehicles they ride are no more “playing equipment” than mountain bikes. Those steps are probably ridable by someone proficient in the sport.

[dieterdreist]

proficient in the sport, and slim in stature. Frankly, I do not think you can ride a bike on these steps, but I can imagine some artist with good elbow and thigh protection could do it nonetheless. There are also prolific bikers who ride on top of fences, but it doesn’t mean we should tag the fences a cyclable. https://www.youtube.com/@Danny_MacAskill

[TonyS999 (Tony Shield)]

I’ve seen many discussions about bicycles and the bicycle tag being the legal definition. I think we need a practical sub-tag also.
With people suggesting unicycles are a thing then maybe we need to think of trycyles also; not forgetting wheelchairs.
So that leads me to think of
bicycle:legal= (yes/no)
bicycle:practical=(scale of some sort)
bicycle:note=(descritive note of severe problem)
etc for unicycle, tricycle, wheelchair

[dieterdreist]

So that leads me to think of
bicycle:legal= (yes/no)

we already have this, it is the tag „bicycle“

[TonyS999 (Tony Shield)]

yes we have - and it is inadequate which is why this discussion is occurring. I’m suggesting that the tag system be expanded to allow a better description of the wheel ability of the tagging.
bicycle (yes/no) can still exist and greater clarity will be available for a greater description

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@TonyS999

bicycle:practical=(scale of some sort)

We do have mtb:scale, but I guess you’re asking for something “below mtb:scale=0”? For those I’d suggest existing tags such as surface, smoothness, tracktype etc. That might still leave a gap for some sort of scale, but please do use already in use tags first.