Proposal talk:Mtb

Making it clearer about it's goal

Something is unclear for me, is mtb a legal propertie or a physical propertie (or both ?) ? When you say : mtb=yes, does it mean mountain bikes are able to use the path, or does it means the mountain bikes are allowed to use the path ?

• If it is a legale propertie, my idea is too move it to access= tags and use the established shema. And then yes I agree with it.

( But seriously, are there any way where bicylcle are not allowed and mtb are ? or the opposite ? if yes, then I'll vote yes to it

• If it is a physical propertie, then I would suggest to merge it with Proposed features/mtb scale
• is it both ?? then I'll vote no to this proposal

so what's you idea ? Sletuffe 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not to sure how it's best.

mtb as a very simple tag

I would like to have the users being able to tag mtb=yes for sake of simplicity. mtb=yes should simply mean a that a way is suitable for mtbiking from a technical stanpoint without saying anything about difficulty. The fewer tags a user has to give, the greater the chance that it gets accepted for general use.

Sorry again for inserting into your comments, well this is a great problem, what is best ? having a very easy thing that doesn't say enough with other tags being duplicates , or using a bigger schem and making it hard to tag ?

I think we could find an in-between, I think we should allow something very simple like :

highway=path

mtb_scale=easy

And with that only, you know moutain bike can drive on it

with your proposal you will need :

highway=path

mtb=yes

+

mtb_scale=easy

The last too are duplicates right ? so you propose a taging schem for lazy guys :

highway=path

mtb=yes

but here will raise the same problem every one have with access= : what about :

highway=path

mtb=no

mtb_scale=easy ?

Let's have a look at sac_scale=* it's pretty usable, and there is no hiking=yes

So no, to my point of vue, this is not a good way to go Sletuffe 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would see all other tags as optionally going together with mtb=*. The problem with the legal system is however, primarily in Germany, that most ways used for mtbiking, are illegal to use, but nevertheless that law is not enacted. For Austria I'm not so sure on the regulation, but I think it's the same problem we have here as in Germany. I don't want to propose to break the law, but information like this can be useful if a law changes, or to put pressure on landowners or government to change the law, so probabely we then should declare this as a simple question wheter mountainbiking is possible or no.

There you are talking about access right, so, in this case, let's votre on mtb=yes/no/permissive on a "legal usage" but not physical Sletuffe 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that mtb=yes will be somehow redundant with the mtb_scale/difficulty, but we have this case for many other categories too. To me this is like tagging forest=yes and if people want they can additionaly give foresttype=glades (I just made this up, I'm not sure of the categories for forest types).

My point here is, even if people have made errors in the osm schema in the past, let's try to avoid them in the future. Take for instance the comments I gave about tracktype=* and surface=* do you see a difference between grade5 and surface=grass ? I don't, and so people use one or the other and they don't really know why, and I, as a renderer manager are just loosing all my hair one by one Sletuffe 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What to do before RFC and then Voting

Extremecarver said > I want help to prepare this for voting

No problems, I'll handle that when time has come, but I'm still unsure, mtb=yes is the best way to go Sletuffe 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's o.k. if I send the RFC to the mailinglist for the mtb section? I think we've advanced enough to get voting in 14 days time.--Extremecarver 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course yes you can, it is pretty(almost?) good for an RFC state, but... sorry to say that, but in it's current description and usage, I fear many people will find it useless and will just "forget it" and come back later to just vote "no". And even if I don't want to hurt you, If I were ask to vote now, I would vote "no" Sletuffe 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And, as a general comment, I realy don't like trying to go too fast for a vote, and overall if we are only 3 for now discussing it. Because many other people haven't seen that proposal yet. Sletuffe 23:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

mtb=* can live together with mtb:scale

Mountain biking access permissions are useful several places i think, typically mtb=permissive|designated|yes|no. --vibrog 22:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you got any usefull examples of mtb as acces permission? I think bicycle=* is serving well (it took me some time to accept that too). --Extremecarver 22:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have deeply thought, that maybe there are few (very few) examples on that, but I don't have any real life examples for now. The only one I have is a use for "mtb=no" to "racing bike rings" where mtb crampons could damage the floor. Then are forbidden while still physically able to drive on it. But that case would be so rare that we should just let that "acces tag" asside for now. (oups that was me Sletuffe)

For Vibrog, the problem we face some times about tagging is how to give the difference between "being allowed to" and "being able to" Many examples have shown that this is useful in some case to separate them. And we should stay consistent to that, I think. Even if you might think, (wich would be true) that a mtb=yes tag could be used for both "yes mtb are allowed" and "yes they can go there". ( I lack the perfect example where things will go wrong in this special case, but I think you see my point ) Sletuffe 23:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

i think bicycle=* will be sufficient. A landowner will be equally upset either type of bicycle used, for example.

--vibrog 07:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)