Talk:Proposed features/mtb:type

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Name of the tag

Should we call the mtb_trailtype or mtb_trail_type?--Extremecarver 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care, mtb_trail_type looks good, but anyone is okay for me Sletuffe 21:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have moved this to the global namespace system, wtb:XXX=value and it's now mtb:trail_type=value, if you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find me, maybe you can hire... Me ... to change that! (whoa, too late !)Sletuffe 01:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like mtb:type, similar to that of piste:type. --vibrog 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I prefere mtb:type as well, it's more consistent to piste:type. Sletuffe 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah, lets use that. --Extremecarver 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
piste:type means type of the piste. mtb:type means type of the mountain-bike? Better use trailtype or tracktype! --Phobie 09:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

goal ?

Just one question... what is that for again ? is this related to width of the trail ? to that story of singletrail and multipletrail ? Sletuffe 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It was in the original German proposal. I would state goal as giving an opportunity to highlight manmade trails like bikeparks, downhill trails, or highlight singletrails because many mtbikers just love riding singletrails.
What about using width=* then ? even if "approximative" ? I don't know what is "bikeparks" but if this is specific to mtb, then ok for that key Sletuffe 23:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
with mtb:scale , incline, width and other features you could describe normal path's very good. I think mtb:type is only necessary for manmade trails only used for mtbiking. Since this aren't too many, this could be go into the mtb:description feature? Keep it simple, not to many features. --Kaivi 11:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible types of trails

Sorry for only being able to give this link in German. This is what we consider as different bikeparks (I think all those types of biking could be used as a value for this key (you can click on the german link, and then go for english description - I don't know of such an overview at wikipedia in English). Basically anything that's custom built for biking (be it BMX, Mtb, etc...). Also see the website of Austria's most popular bikepark: [1] The problem is that while one could tag the whole lift-accesed mtb region as a bikepark, normally bikeparks are much smaller, or even only one track. I'm sure one day people will come up with a whole page dedicated only to bikeparks here....

We could also use the following values (taken from DH/XC/AM/EN/4X/DS/SC/IC/Trials/Dirt_Jumping/ According to bike types. Off course a classification would then be pretty subjective (i.e. classifying a way as Allmountain because Allmountain Mountainbikes are built for that kind of ways and we all know that a professional could do the same thing with a XC-bike) but it gives an easy to understand/visualise characterisation of a way. So for example if I see that a way is tagged as DH, I know kinda what to expect. (We could just copy pictures from wikipedia over here into the wiki to let the users visualize the categories better).--Extremecarver 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
OK !!! I get it now, you should have explicited that earlier ;-) Ok, perfect for me then, I don't kown of any of them in france, but then I know that no other tags overlap this one. I think we are close to RFC for this one, maybe we could try to find "english words" to describe your DH/XC/AM/EN/4X/DS/SC/IC/Trials/Dirt_Jumping/ Sletuffe 00:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you think going for the full words is better (danger of spelling mistakes is bigger)? Crosscountry / Allmountain / Enduro / Freeride / Downhill / Four-Cross / Dual_Slalom / Short_Cross / Trial / Dirt_Jumping Off course some of those disciplines take part on the same ways but then why should we exclude them only for that reason? If a way section is tagged as one thing I will know somehow what to expect. I think the UCI should have definitions one how racing courses for each discipline have to be constructed. So one could include them here for classification.--Extremecarver 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember why, but it's common practice to use words, maybe because easier to remember for someone not used to "shortcuts" Sletuffe 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

possible values

I know we have a voting process for mtb:scale, but there is no problem to work also and this proposal that is imho the next in importance. I start to like it this way, but still have a problem with the values, are those "shortcuts" xc am fr dh well known in the whole world ? Even if spelling errors are reduced, isn't it to fear that people won't use them because it doesn't have a meaning for every one ?

I would better find words to describe, even longer. Sletuffe 17:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

okay let's change it to words then.--Extremecarver 18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
To answer how established xc am fr dh abbrevations are, these are commonly used by many bicycle and part manufacturers, describing target group for mtb equipment. That said, I think words or abbrevs both work well, so I support using words. --vibrog 20:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


I think as on mtb:scale we should use a namespace system for subcategories here. So a North Shore in a bikepark (bikepark equals a region or a way for which a group of volunteers or an organization caters that it is in good shape for mountainbiking) would be mtb:type:bikepark=northshore (lets use no spaces I propose). A downhill in a bikepark would accordingly be mtb:type:bikepark=downhill


We could say that bikepark only applies to regions and tagging would be mtb:type=northshore. And the approximate area of this would be done as leisure=bikepark (or is it better to use sport=mtb:bikepark?). I'm open for both ways depending on arguments. The Pro argument for leisure=mtb:bikepark would be that for some bikeparks, like dirt biking bikeparks it would be near to impossible to define all ways inside as there is a myriad of possibilities and allways changing so defining a region might sometimes be easer.--Extremecarver 18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very into all subcategories, but terms like xc racing, marathon, recreational (and super xc) show up from time to time, thus an idea could be to allow mtb:type=crosscountry:marathon as a subclassification theme. Bikepark is different, maybe it should even be a separate tag mtb:bikepark=slopestyle, that is I tend more towards the sport=mtb:bikepark and mtb:type=slopestyle pair? --vibrog 20:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • leisure=bikepark + mtb:type=northshore looks good to me.
but since I don't know what is a "bikepark" it's hard for me to know in the end what you want to tag.
About mtb:type=crosscountry:marathon I see a rather "all in one tag" coming ;-) remember that we can use 2 tags if needed instead of having multiple values in one value (I have seen some proposal with key=value;value2;.. and that is hard to manage on a computer view, and hard for human also to add a value ) mtb:type=crosscountry:marathon looks a bit too much to me. This is just my idea for the form cause I have no idea what you want to use it for.
Is the idea you have of a "marathon" a sort of groupment of different trails ? If yes a route relation could do well since all trails are "mtb:type=crosscountry" and the global relation group them Sletuffe 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


The pictures there is a link to are very good for explaining, are there under CC licence ? can I move them directly in the proposal if I have the right to ? Pictures are very good to show things, sometimes better than words. Sletuffe 22:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started looking for CC-BY licensed pictures at Flickr, but wanted to wait uploading until all category samples were in place. Hopefully can these be used here. --vibrog 07:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Applies to...

... path and track. What about cycleway, unclassified, ford and steps? --Phobie 09:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC) A cycleway is a cycleway, I have not yet seen anything that was officialy considered as cycleway, to be in such a state, that riding it would be considered mountainbiking. As for unclassified I have to check. I could expect that some private mountain roads where car drivers have to pay a fee to use them, are in such a bad shape that one would consider using them as mountainbiking. Steps as in Staircase don't need no further description I think. As for fords I don't think we need additional descriptions. It's rather the ford that for all types of transport must be descriped better. (i.e. 50cm-1m deep after rain, becoming impassable due to water speed, etc. keys). Or only passable with several persons by using river crossing techniques (building a line parallel to stream direction, grabbing the backpack straps for hold).--Extremecarver 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think incline=* is useful together with highway=steps that are found on trails. In some cases ancient pilgrim routes and such may have stairs that have radically varying step sizes and partly eroded, and thus could be described by mtb:scale=* in rare cases, but probably not mtb:type=*, in cases where steps are built as part of an old trail. --vibrog 16:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)