Talk:Tag:highway=via ferrata

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

highway=via_ferrata vs highway=path

Hi, the overpass link you have added to the page doesn't seem to work for me. Also, while it is of some interest that many features are mapped as highway=path + via_ferrata_scale=* the number should not be used as guidance for mappers. I think the results of the recent discussion in the mailing list (search for tagging "RFC rewritten proposal Via_ferrata_simplified") were clear and you are invited to reopen the discussion there. RicoZ (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that this link to overpass-turbo is bad? It gives me a warning that no nodes were returned, but that's because this is a count of the total number of matching features. Try this link to display all the ways and nodes: - does this work?
While I recall the discussion on the Tagging mailing list from March 2019 was not much in favor of the Via Ferrata Simplified proposal, database users should be aware that many Via Ferratas are mapped as highway=path plus via_ferrata_scale=* or via_ferrata=*. While this tagging is method is only a proposal, the tag highway=via_ferrata is also proposed but not approved. In cases like this where there are competing proposals with similar usage levels, the wiki should not only prescribe how a feature ought to be tagged, but also describe how the feature is actually tagged.
I personally don't have a preference between the two tags. Neither is in much use outside of Europe. But it could help to try to move forward with an updated version of the highway=via_ferrata proposal on the Tagging mailing list. If it were approved and better defined, I think there's a better chance of it being supported by more routing and rendering applications. --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I did notice it was a NoScript problem on my end - both overpass links produce a NoScript XSS warning and apparently if I do an unsafe reload work. The links aren't very important anyway, everyone should be able to do the simple math comparing the tagcount of via_ferrata and via_ferrata_scale although a few via_ferrata_scale are probably attached to other highway types like steps. Another thing to consider is how many of those are actually mapped "correctly" by either method - otherwise numbers can be quite misleading. What surprises me right now is that taginfo sees 220 relations of type via_ferrata_scale.
The other method certainly should be documented, it is described in via_ferrata_scale=*. If you want to add it to this page it should probably go under alternatives.
Surprisingly support by renderers is already quite good for highway=via_ferrata, afaics all that should display it do it. Imo most routers only need to know that they should avoid it. This is not a problem if highway=via_ferrata is used as the routers should not route over unknown highway types but certainly is a concern where people use highway=path + via_ferrata_scale which is the reason this combination should never be used without at least sac_scale or additional access tags.
I agree it would be nicer to have an approved proposal but I have little time to improve the proposal and even if it is improved what could quite realistically happen is that we would end up with two rejected via ferrata proposals. RicoZ (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I've changed the location to the "Alternatives" section, good idea. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The ways tagged highway=path + via_ferrata_scale are most likely not the result of the mentioned competing proposal but the long standing disputes around the "old" proposal, some of them are from the time before highway=via_ferrata. RicoZ (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
What I was trying to say it the "alternative" mapping methods should be explained with their history and also broken down .. some are really historic and obsolete like highway=path+ferrata=yes or via_ferrata=yes, some are partly obsolete. As far as I see currently some Austrian guys prefer highway=path+via_ferrata_scale while others highway=via_ferrata and the rest is history. The overpass link does not seem very helpful for the average user and seems to return strange results? The first results that I get is some nodes, looking further down it seems that some objects are strangely mapped like "Sentiero degli stradini" (name clearly suggests walking path) with a via_ferrata_scale=0. RicoZ (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)



  • highway=via_ferrata - 1115 way
  • via_ferrata_scale & highway= path - 831 ways
    • via_ferrata_scale<3 - 427 ways

A few via_ferrata_scale's were applied to zip lines which seems legit although a relation would be also nice RicoZ (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Prescriptive vs Descriptive language

This is a general issue, but it's relevant to this page too. My understanding is that Tag: and Key: pages in this wiki should be written in encyclopedic style, and should use descriptive language. So rather than saying "you should map it this way" or "that way is unacceptable", we can write "is is common..." "most mappers..." "most database users..." and such. For prescriptive language like "you should do this / should not do that", there is a Proposal process. Looking at this recent change: - the significant changes are changing descriptions of current mapping practice to use words like "acceptable" instead. While this isn't a big problem, it's another example of where the wiki seems to be giving instructions about what is right and wrong, rather than describing how tags are used. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point. Are you aware of a style guide that has more details or discussions elsewhere regarding this topic? In my experience this wiki is certainly very "opinionated" - because it is written by people who care. If I ever write something not giving a clear guidance than it is almost always because I do not know what is the "right" option.
I do not consider the difference in style between the proposal space and tag/key space very significant, if a proposal gets accepted it gets usually moved to the key description pretty verbatim so depending on who wrote what you might find all kinds of styles.
Regarding the specific edit you mentioned, I believe this is "encyclopedic". It has been discussed over and again in mailing lists and forum and talk pages, there is no universal agreement but my impression is many if not most users would consider it bad practice. RicoZ (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)