Talk:Key:trail visibility

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please see the proposals discussion page for the history of this key.


I have added some examples. The big problem is, that pictures are really not telling how it looks in reality. Sometimes moving back/forward for the picture changes the whole situation, while on the trail the eye has no problem at all identifying the trail.--Extremecarver 18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not apply it to highway=track as well?

Since some tracks are seldom used, they are not easily visible--especially tracks whose tracktype=grade5 (i.e. unpaved track; lack of hardcore, and uncompacted, subtle on the landscape, made from only grass, sand and/or soil).

Wouldn't it be useful to tag tracks with trail_visibility? OK, probably tracktype already gives a hint about the track visibility, but with trail_visibility I think it would be much more explicit.--solitone, 2012.01.19

something between excellent and good?

often most wooded trails have pretty good visibility but sometimes the visibility breaks down with leaf cover etc not quite sure how to handle those situations I have been for the most part just tagging them as good or excellent based on sections that have better visibility then other sections it can vary a lot over the coarse of a trail though. --Kc0nlh 2014.05.12

controversy about verifiability

I've added a section about the controversy about this tag (Mainly because it is listed at because verifiability this tag. Those who want to propose solution that problem are welcome to talk about it here. sletuffe (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

recommended track

What about recommended tracks for best practise ways to get from A to B? In Norway we often have to hike in areas where there is no track. Could I draw in a recommended track (Tag:seamark:type=recommended track), where it is easiest to go, and mark it with trail_visibility=no? Any comments on that? (user:danielscheidegger58)

highly confusing tag

Is this tag about whatever path itself is visible - or it is about whatever hiking route is visible?

> Next marker always visible, but sometimes has to be searched for.

Indicates "about routes".

On the other hand

> Part of a classification scheme for hiking trails, but can be used for any type of paths.

Indicates "first".


> key describes attributes regarding trail visibility (not route visibility)

seems to indicate "about route, not about visibility of highway=*" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC) indicates that it is used to mark whatever highway=* is visible - maybe description of values should be amended to remove claims that it is used to describe visibility of hiking routes? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Using this tag to hide footways on the Mapnik renderer?

In my city (Brussels) I spotted many occurrences of people using trail_visibility=no to map for the renderer (normally not a good idea) and create invisible ways.

Typically, there will be a large pedestrian area on a square, and users will then draw a spider web of footways across it. This will help routing engines to present more natural trajectories *across* the square. And those footways will not clutter the standard map rendering, because one will only see one big area. (example)

I wonder whether this practice should be encouraged, or whether other tags will suit better. Bxl-forever (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This is tagging that is not even working! Openstreetmap carto is completely ignoring trail_visibility tag, invisibility of this ways is caused by fact that highway=pedestrian in pedestrian area is not visible. And it seems that this tagging is incorrect. I opened Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)