Talk:Key:trailblazed

osmc:symbol and wiki:symbol on ways?

@Miramikes: osmc:symbol=* and wiki:symbol=* are currently not defined to be usable on ways, but you seem to suggest that here (Key:trailblazed#Examples). This is a contradiction. Can you please fix that? Or did I get it wrong? --Hufkratzer (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hufkratzer:Actually you are right ... good point. I was not aware of this and also nobody noticed this issue during proposal and voting process :(

What is your suggested solution? Just remove osmc:symbol=* and wiki:symbol=* and keep only symbol=* colour=*?

I will also address tagging mailing list to hear opinion of others. --Miramikes (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not so easy. The page for osmc:symbol=* says: "osmc:symbol=* is machine readable equivalent of symbol=*,..." and symbol=* is defined to be usable on ways. This is also a contradiction. It's probably best if you ask on the tagging mailing list. --Hufkratzer (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to allow these tags on ways --Jcr83 (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that? The pages for symbol=* and osmc:symbol=* say in the first sentence that these tags are especially for route symbols and routes are mapped with relations. If there is a route symbol somewhere doesn't that mean that there is a route that should be mapped with a relation and symbol=* / osmc:symbol=* put on that route relation and not on some way? --Hufkratzer (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Because of the new trailblazed key. This key can be used on paths that are not part of a route. In my area (France), many trailblazed paths are not part of routes, and we need a way to indicate which symbol is used for trailblazing. --Jcr83 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you give a typical example of that? --Peter Elderson (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218868045#map=16/43.7510/6.8935

Description in the info-box is wrong-footing people!

Suggestion:

Description:

Tag trailblazed=* on paths or tracks which are only visible because of poles, cairns or other markings.

--Peter Elderson (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No please!!! That would extremely limits usage, This tag was never intended this way. Some path or track might be invisible on certain circumstances like fog or snow cover but necessarily always. Sometimes cairns can help on places where is more paths ... some from animals like reindeer's and is difficult say which one is right and so on.

Plenty cases. --Miramikes (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It would seem I misunderstood the intention of the proposal. Still, the Usage says "Tag trailblazed=* on paths or tracks which are only visible because of poles, cairns or other markings. If only part of the way is trailblazed for visibility, only tag the relevant sections. Do not tag trailblazed=* on route relations containing such a way. In route relations, use osmc:symbol=* symbol=* wiki:symbol=* or colour=* to tag the waymarking of the entire route." I remember from the discussions that symbols only came in later, because sometimes symbols are used to show where the way is, on sections where you couldn't find it (or the correct one) otherwise (possibly dependent on circumstances e.g. snow). The proposal was not intended to tag trailblazing in general, was it?

I assume most trailblazed paths and tracks would be visible without the poles, cairns or other markings too (see trail_visibility=*). --Hufkratzer (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The tag was specifically aimed at instances where the path is *not* (or e.g. not in winter conditions) visible without the poles or cairns.--Peter Elderson (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes but it is not "winter specific" tag ... especially cairns are not very useful in winter time under 1m of snow. --Miramikes (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Then the title image (which was uploaded by @Miramikes:) is misleading. (Perhaps this trail is not visible in winter conditions without additional markings, but the image shows it under conditions when it is clearly visible without additional markings.) Also I find it quite complicated for the mapper if he has to imagine how a trail might look under different conditons than he sees it when he wants to decide how to tag it. --Hufkratzer (talk)

I think image is fine. I choose this one on purpose because is quite neutral and thus not misleading. For specific usage in specific conditions and scenarios are pictures in sections "Values" and "Examples" --Miramikes (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to advocate the position of Peter Elderson, which seems too limited to me, still, in my view, picture https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Trailblazed_cairns_1.jpg is the prime example, where key trailblazed really shines (not the least, because trail_visibilty=no there) - I tagged two of such paths during the voting:) But mapy.cz does not render the cairns - I thought it would do so already :( --Hungerburg (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have actually encountered a situation where trailblazed=poles applies, I think, not because you can't see the path, but because there are so many perfectly visible paths that you need guidance to help you through. Sort of a maze situation! Red headed poles are placed to indicate the paths you need to follow to get you to the other side of the wooded area, ignoring back-looping sidetracks and dead ends. --Peter Elderson (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If (sections of) ways are trailblazed, not as part of routes, but to show where the way is, I understood that is the purpose of this tag. The actual motivation why the way or section of the way is trailblazed is up to the people who do it, and this is the tag to map it. The picture of a symbol on a tree next to a perfect path can also illustrate a recreational route waymarked with this symbol, which is exactly what the text says is not intended. That is why I would choose a different picture to illustrate just the intended purpose of the tag. --Peter Elderson (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The current description (i.e. "Tag trailblazed=* on paths or tracks which are only visible because of poles, cairns or other markings") breaks with the original proposal and current usage (i.e. "Add trailblazed=yes to indicate that a way is marked using trail blazes."). The tag has been in use since it was proposed back in 2010. It has been used on 38 857 ways and relations since then. Don't change the meaning of tags that have been in use for over a decade and thousands of times! If you need a new tag, please invent a new tag instead of redefining a tag that's already in use. --Tractor (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I've chnged the desription so that is reflects actual usage: "Tag trailblazed=* on paths or tracks which are marked using poles, cairns or other markings." --Tractor (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

trailblazed=ribbon

I suggest we add this as a new entry for tape/ribbon markings.

--Aharvey (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Can be used only if there is no waymarked route tagged with a osmc:symbol=* …

What is the meaning of this sentence: "trailblazed=symbols can be used only if there is no waymarked route tagged with … If this condition is met trailblazed=symbols can be used". Is the emphasize on route, i.e. if there is a route tagged with some kind of symbol, then do not use (additional) trailblazed=symbols on the path? --GerdHH (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)