Template talk:Tagging scheme for hiking and foot route relations
foot vs hiking: wording
Perhaps "route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions" and "route=foot: ... (at a pinch, even flip-flops)" RicoZ (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. Thanks for the input. --S8evq (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- --Peter Elderson (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC) By this definition, nothing qualifies as a foot route. I have seen many trails tagged route=foot which do have limitations regarding fitness, footwear and weather conditions somewhere along the route, and which should not be walked on flipflops. I don't think taggers will retag these.
I think this distinction between route=foot and route=hiking is a problem. Did someone check if the tags are really used differently? My impression is that route=foot is more British and route=hiking matches American English, as well as the translation of some terms in other languages. While foot routes in England are easier than hiking routes in the northern Rocky Mountains, this is more a matter of different geography rather than different usage of the two tags, no? --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the UK, and some other parts of the world, there is a distinction between walking and hiking. Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops). Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW, parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because there is no route). --Brian de Ford (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on this. I think there are routes that 99% of mappers who make a distinction would classify as a walking route, and I think there are routes that 99% would classify as hiking routes. There are also going to be a lot of subjective shades of grey in between. If we come up with clear definitions we could tighten things up a little, but there are still going to be shades of grey. Does it matter? Well, it influences what equipment you bring: it's embarrassing to have hiking boots and a cane on a walk; having only walking shoes on a hike is sub-optimal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
What about nested routes?
- Peter, my first goal is to consolidate / harmonize the existing tagging scheme and introduction text, not adding new information. If there is agreement on 'nested routes' (=relations), then we can add it here. --S8evq (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- --Peter Elderson (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Then maybe this sentence: "To tag a walking/hiking route you create a relation with the appropriate tags and add all elements (points and ways) [what points are to be added? I would say none, only add ways] of the hiking route to this relation. [Add this sentence If possible, "sort the ways in a logical order"]" could be "To tag a SIMPLE or BASIC walking route...", and add "For more complicated or very long routes you can create relations containing the route relations of sections,see ...". Because you state that walking relations contain ways, but mappers will very soon encounter relations containing relations, and you don't want them to think that's wrong.