Talk:Proposed features/highway:hiking trail

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I thought we had highway=path with or without relation:route for this? --Cartinus 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

me too: highway=path and the sac_scale=* to show what is needed to use the trail (surefooteness, equipment, etc.). Valhalla 05:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

true - and a name or a ref could be attached to a path, too. No need for another feature besides path and track. --Florianschmitt 06:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

i'm strongly against this proposal. this highway=hiking_trail proposal will be in conflict with highway=track, highway=path, highway=footway and so on. a trail is an orthogonal feature to the existing highway types, so this should be solved by relation:route --xylome 11:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comments. This basically duplicates highway=path. Not highway=track though, that's for cars. --Hawke 16:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually highway=track is for vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders and whatnot. Anybody who ever hiked in the Swiss Alps, knows that the hiking trails there make extensive use of both paths and tracks. That is one of the reasons relation:route makes much more sense for this. --Cartinus 02:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Via ferrata

Like others here, I think this is a duplicate of highway=footway or highway=path (+ relation type=route if you need to mark a long trail running through multiple footways).

However, you show an interesting point about "footways that need more than your feet and a stick" those are via-ferrata, and climbing ways ( both with wall equipement, or else any cliff will do ) The only thing we have for now seams to be sport=climbing but for nodes only. When this is a perfect wall, there's no problem but how to tag when it has an horizontal length ? Sletuffe 13:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)