Changeset 62867521

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Changeset 62867521

Mike Thompson
Hello,

User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:

They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is "informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on this issue.

dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail, even though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and logs (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location, there was no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and perhaps indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are "trail_visibility=intermediate."

Mike


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changeset 62867521

Andrew Harvey-3
I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment. I agree that name should be the proper name only and all other information can go in other tags or the description field.

Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be signposted and potentially part of a hiking route, and an "informal" route won't be signposted an not part of a hiking route, is that your view too? In that case for the "official" one I'd use foot=designated and make it part of the route=hiking relation, and foot=yes for the informal one. This matches the definitions of =yes and =designated at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking_Maps lists a range of hiking maps many do show more information than the default OSM rendered.

I agree it's best to use a barrier=* tag on the node instead of disconnecting the ways, as that barrier might only block motor_vehicles, not foot access, which the barrier can be tagged as such.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 12:30, Mike Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:

They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is "informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on this issue.

dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail, even though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and logs (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location, there was no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and perhaps indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are "trail_visibility=intermediate."

Mike

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changeset 62867521

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Mike Thompson



8 Nov 2019, 02:29 by [hidden email]:
Hello,

User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:

They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is "informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on this issue.

dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail, even though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and logs (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location, there was no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and perhaps indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are "trail_visibility=intermediate."

Mike

Sounds like typical incorrect mapping for renderer.

In the first case: name is for name only
In the second case: is fire trail illegal/discouraged/dangerous? Maybe it is taggable,
but deliberate breaking connections is not OK.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changeset 62867521

Mike Thompson


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> In the second case: is fire trail illegal
No, there are no signs on or near the trail indicating this.  Nor are there any signs in the park that going off official trails is illegal (there are a few restricted areas elsewhere in the park).  In fact, getting to many of the destinations in the park require travel off of the official trails.  For example, there are no official trails to the summit of Mt Meeker, Hallett Peak, or Mt Otis (not to mention dozens of other peaks, lakes and waterfalls).

> discouraged
Perhaps if a tourist looking for a short scenic hike were to ask a ranger it would be as it is steeper than the nearby official trail (covers the same amount of vertical in less horizontal distance) and is not particularly scenic (goes through dense woods).  It is mainly used by hikers wanting to get to the more distant peaks on the continental divide as well as rangers patrolling the area.  There are no signs or maps discouraging its use.

> dangerous?
No more dangerous that some official trails in the park.  The trail is well defined so there is little danger of getting lost, and there is little chance of a long fall.  Like many official trails, there is a risk of tripping on rocks and roots.


> Maybe it is taggable,
Yes, all characteristics of this trail that might be of interest are taggable.  The issue is that some apps do not symbolize all of this information.  This is an issue with the apps themselves, and should be addressed with the app developers, not by changing how we map things in OSM.

Mike


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changeset 62867521

Mike Thompson
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3


On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:37 PM Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment.  
Thanks for commenting.   
  
> Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be signposted  
Agree.  It will also show up on official park maps, and possibly in official park GIS data.  
   
> and potentially part of a hiking route,  
Agree, but we don't have many official "hiking routes" in this area.  
  
> and an "informal" route won't be signposted an not part of a hiking route, is that your view too?   
Agree generally.  
   
> In that case for the "official" one I'd use foot=designated and make it part of the route=hiking relation, and foot=yes for the informal one. This matches the definitions of =yes and =designated at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.
I wouldn't be opposed to such tagging.    However, there are many official trails in this area, and no trail is not officially preferred/designated over other official trails for foot use.
  
  
> I agree it's best to use a barrier=* tag on the node instead of disconnecting the ways, as that barrier might only block motor_vehicles, not foot access, which the barrier can be tagged as such.
The "barrier" in question is probably meant to keep casual hikers from inadvertently taking the Fire Trail.  Motor vehicles are not allowed on trails in the park.  Nevertheless, I agree with your recommendation. 
  

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changeset 62867521

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Mike Thompson


On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:30 PM Mike Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:

They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is "informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on this issue.

It's a trail just for firefighting and rescue to access, but closed to all others, correct?

highway=footway
access=no
emergency=yes
 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changeset 62867521

Mike Thompson


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:50 AM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's a trail just for firefighting and rescue to access, but closed to all others, correct?
That is not correct.  There is no legal restriction on its use for foot travel. 


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging