Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
86 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

s8evq
Hello everyone,

On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come here, before proceeding.


Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?

Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797

So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.


My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support before going further.


Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.




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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Peter Elderson
I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes. When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the tagging scheme.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:
Hello everyone,

On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come here, before proceeding.


Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?

Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797

So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.


My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support before going further.


Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.




_______________________________________________
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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by s8evq
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:52, s8evq <[hidden email]> wrote:

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?

A principle used in programming is "DRY."  Don't repeat yourself.  Maintaining the same
code in two or more places will cause problems down the line when one version gets
changed and the other does not.

Documentation is a little different, because you often wish the same information to appear
in several places.  This is the case where the documentation is extensive but people
assume that everything they need to know about a topic will appear in one place.   OTOH,
the desirability of not repeating yourself increases a lot when you have many translations
of the material.

One way of handling this is a link.  Another way of doing it offered by the wiki is transclusion.
(the first of those two links transcludes the second of those links, just so you can see how
it looks).

There are arguments against each way.  If you link to a full page then the poor user
encountering the link has to wade through that full page to find the table.  If you transclude
then those wishing to edit the page, or even the transcluded material, may find it
difficult to figure out how to do it.  You could, of course, put the table in its own page and
link to that, which avoids the editing problem and the information overload problem, but
still means more clicks and page loads are required than reading a page with a
transclusion.

Up to you which one you go with.  Note that at some point in the future, somebody may
decide that whichever way you chose to do it was wrong and edit it to do it differently. :)

--
Paul


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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Warin
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:
I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.
+1
When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the tagging scheme.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:
Hello everyone,

On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come here, before proceeding.


Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?

Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797

So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.


My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support before going further.


Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.






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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Kevin Kenny-3
I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!

But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.
>
> +1
>
> When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the tagging scheme.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come here, before proceeding.
>>
>>
>> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
>>
>> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?
>>
>> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
>>
>> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
>>
>>
>> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support before going further.
>>
>>
>> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by s8evq
On 8/13/2019 4:50 AM, s8evq wrote:

> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

Hi s8evq, I'm withholding judgement for now on the larger question of
combining these, but one comment: All four of these tables describe
'colour' as "especially useful for public transport routes" which isn't
particular relevant to this topic IMO. Maybe "useful for trails blazed
with a specific colour"?

Thanks, Jason


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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

s8evq


On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:17:07 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
> Hi s8evq, I'm withholding judgement for now on the larger question of
> combining these, but one comment: All four of these tables describe
> 'colour' as "especially useful for public transport routes" which isn't
> particular relevant to this topic IMO. Maybe "useful for trails blazed
> with a specific colour"?
>
> Thanks, Jason

Indeed, I didn't notice that. You're right.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

s8evq
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
True, that's something that could be added to the tagging scheme. For example "route=foot|hiking" explaining the difference in de explanation column.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:07:56 -0400, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
> places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
> concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
> managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
> tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!
>
> But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:
> >
> > I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the tagging scheme.
> >
> > Vr gr Peter Elderson
> >
> >
> > Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come here, before proceeding.
> >>
> >>
> >> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
> >>
> >> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?
> >>
> >> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
> >>
> >> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
> >>
> >>
> >> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support before going further.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Peter Elderson
Foot is always right, at some point it may turn into hiking, also dependent on what you carry, where it happens, and how you feel about it. Personal preference/country/region largely determine how you call it. For all practical purposes, highway=foot and highway=hiking are the same. If a renderer or datauser wants to be more specific, better to consider specific attributes of the relation(s) and the ways it uses, to determine how to render/categorize/filter the routes.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 21:38 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:
True, that's something that could be added to the tagging scheme. For example "route=foot|hiking" explaining the difference in de explanation column.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:07:56 -0400, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
> places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
> concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
> managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
> tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!
>
> But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:
> >
> > I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the tagging scheme.
> >
> > Vr gr Peter Elderson
> >
> >
> > Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come here, before proceeding.
> >>
> >>
> >> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
> >>
> >> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?
> >>
> >> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
> >>
> >> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
> >>
> >>
> >> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support before going further.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

s8evq
I have gone ahead, and made a temporary Wiki page (not linked from anywhere) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_scheme_hiking_walking

I copy here the text I added on the page as well:


I have not added or removed any content. The aim of this table is to only harmonize the four different tagging scheme tables. The only three things I have altered so far are:

1) Remove the wording "(optional)" in front of the explanation of some keys. What's the function of adding (optional) in front of tags that are in the Useful section of the table? Isn't every tag that is not in Required optional by default?
2) Sort alphabetical in the Useful section
3) Use tag and tagvalue templates where possible


To do
1) Explanation route=hiking / route=foot is merely a copy paste at the moment. Should be cleaned out and clarified
2) Explanation network=* is merely a copy paste of the different explanations. Duplicates should be removed and text clarified.
3) Remove the mentioning of public transport routes in the explanation of colour=*.


To be decided:
How to integrate this table in hiking, Walking Routes, tag:route=hiking, tag:route=foot
1) Link from each of the four pages to this as a separate page?
2) Pick one of the four pages, put the table there, and link from it in the three other pages?
3) Use transclusion



On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 22:08:12 +0200, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Foot is always right, at some point it may turn into hiking, also dependent
> on what you carry, where it happens, and how you feel about it. Personal
> preference/country/region largely determine how you call it. For all
> practical purposes, highway=foot and highway=hiking are the same. If a
> renderer or datauser wants to be more specific, better to consider specific
> attributes of the relation(s) and the ways it uses, to determine how to
> render/categorize/filter the routes.
>
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 21:38 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:
>
> > True, that's something that could be added to the tagging scheme. For
> > example "route=foot|hiking" explaining the difference in de explanation
> > column.
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:07:56 -0400, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
> > > places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
> > > concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
> > > managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
> > > tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!
> > >
> > > But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and
> > discuss the tagging scheme.
> > > >
> > > > Vr gr Peter Elderson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello everyone,
> > > >>
> > > >> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
> > I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come
> > here, before proceeding.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how
> > walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
> > > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> > > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> > > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> > > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
> > > >>
> > > >> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a
> > link to it in the others?
> > > >>
> > > >> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme
> > tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the
> > explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those
> > interested, here are my edits:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
> > > >>
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
> > > >>
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
> > > >>
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
> > > >>
> > > >> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki
> > pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have
> > broader support before going further.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme.
> > But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki
> > page.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Tagging mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Warin
Nit picking..
name:xy is not the local name but the name in some language, usually not the local language
. 
loc_name is for the local name.
alt_name for an alternate name etc etc... 

Suggested text for osmc:symbol=* "represents the symbol used on the route."?

state=* should be dropped! There are already life cycle tags that can be used for planning, construction etc.

Alternate ... As in an alternate path, this could be a role in the route? 

Thoughts... 


I think colour=* could be the major colour of the symbol used on the route?
Not enchanted with educational=* as that key could be used for other things. But I don't have a suggestion for it. Some 25 uses so far, mostly in Germany.
Probably needs a statement that ways only are to be entered, excludes things like information boards, shelters, toilets etc etc. 


Humm... looks like I have a 'hiking' route that is more of a 'foot' route.. Thanks for making the page, good start. 


On 14/08/19 19:54, s8evq wrote:
I have gone ahead, and made a temporary Wiki page (not linked from anywhere) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_scheme_hiking_walking

I copy here the text I added on the page as well:


I have not added or removed any content. The aim of this table is to only harmonize the four different tagging scheme tables. The only three things I have altered so far are:

1) Remove the wording "(optional)" in front of the explanation of some keys. What's the function of adding (optional) in front of tags that are in the Useful section of the table? Isn't every tag that is not in Reqteh local nameuired optional by default?
2) Sort alphabetical in the Useful section
3) Use tag and tagvalue templates where possible


To do
1) Explanation route=hiking / route=foot is merely a copy paste at the moment. Should be cleaned out and clarified
2) Explanation network=* is merely a copy paste of the different explanations. Duplicates should be removed and text clarified.
3) Remove the mentioning of public transport routes in the explanation of colour=*.


To be decided:
How to integrate this table in hiking, Walking Routes, tag:route=hiking, tag:route=foot
1) Link from each of the four pages to this as a separate page?
2) Pick one of the four pages, put the table there, and link from it in the three other pages?
3) Use transclusion 



On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 22:08:12 +0200, Peter Elderson [hidden email] wrote:

Foot is always right, at some point it may turn into hiking, also dependent
on what you carry, where it happens, and how you feel about it. Personal
preference/country/region largely determine how you call it. For all
practical purposes, highway=foot and highway=hiking are the same. If a
renderer or datauser wants to be more specific, better to consider specific
attributes of the relation(s) and the ways it uses, to determine how to
render/categorize/filter the routes.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 21:38 schreef s8evq [hidden email]:

True, that's something that could be added to the tagging scheme. For
example "route=foot|hiking" explaining the difference in de explanation
column.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:07:56 -0400, Kevin Kenny [hidden email]
wrote:

I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!

But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin [hidden email] wrote:
On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.

+1

When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and
discuss the tagging scheme.
Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq [hidden email]:
Hello everyone,

On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come
here, before proceeding.

Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how
walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a
link to it in the others?
Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme
tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the
explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those
interested, here are my edits:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054

              
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580

              
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636

              
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.


My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki
pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have
broader support before going further.

Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme.
But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki
page.






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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Hufkratzer
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
I would also prefer the transclusion (template) instead of just links.

It may be possible to split it up in and a part with more general tags (e.g. name, ref, operator, distance, ...) that are also used with other kinds of routes (e.g. for route=running;bicycle;mtb;horse;piste;inline_skates), so that this can be used there too, and in a part with hiking/walking specific tags (e.g. network, educational).

On 13.08.2019 12:31, Paul Allen:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:52, s8evq <[hidden email]> wrote:

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?

A principle used in programming is "DRY."  Don't repeat yourself.  Maintaining the same
code in two or more places will cause problems down the line when one version gets
changed and the other does not.

Documentation is a little different, because you often wish the same information to appear
in several places.  This is the case where the documentation is extensive but people
assume that everything they need to know about a topic will appear in one place.   OTOH,
the desirability of not repeating yourself increases a lot when you have many translations
of the material.

One way of handling this is a link.  Another way of doing it offered by the wiki is transclusion.
(the first of those two links transcludes the second of those links, just so you can see how
it looks).

There are arguments against each way.  If you link to a full page then the poor user
encountering the link has to wade through that full page to find the table.  If you transclude
then those wishing to edit the page, or even the transcluded material, may find it
difficult to figure out how to do it.  You could, of course, put the table in its own page and
link to that, which avoids the editing problem and the information overload problem, but
still means more clicks and page loads are required than reading a page with a
transclusion.

Up to you which one you go with.  Note that at some point in the future, somebody may
decide that whichever way you chose to do it was wrong and edit it to do it differently. :)

--
Paul



_______________________________________________
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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by s8evq
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 10:56, s8evq <[hidden email]> wrote:

1) Remove the wording "(optional)" in front of the explanation of some keys. What's the function of adding (optional) in front of tags that are in the Useful section of the table? Isn't every tag that is not in Required optional by default?

It helps newbies.  Newbies have to start somewhere, and adding a walking/hiking route
might be the first thing somebody tries and doesn't read any other documentation first.
At least consider a sentence under the heading "Useful" explaining that those tags
are optional.  Not strictly needed, but I'm remembering my early days with OSM and
trying to make sense of it without getting lost in a twisty maze of wiki pages, all
different.

To do
1) Explanation route=hiking / route=foot is merely a copy paste at the moment. Should be cleaned out and clarified

One distinction I saw (I have no idea where) is that it influences the type of footwear needed.
Walking shoes (at a pinch, even ordinary shoes) are adequate for a walking trail but a
hiking trail needs walking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy
undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow streams.

Yes, that definition seems to be putting the cart before the horse, but follow it backwards.
If the map says it's a walking route you can get away with walking shoes or even
ordinary shoes; if the map says it's a hiking route then you need hiking boots.  And that
is the reason for the map making a distinction in the first place, so you know what type
of equipment you need.

--
Paul


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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Warin
On 14/08/19 22:21, Paul Allen wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 10:56, s8evq <[hidden email]> wrote:

1) Remove the wording "(optional)" in front of the explanation of some keys. What's the function of adding (optional) in front of tags that are in the Useful section of the table? Isn't every tag that is not in Required optional by default?

It helps newbies.  Newbies have to start somewhere, and adding a walking/hiking route
might be the first thing somebody tries and doesn't read any other documentation first.
At least consider a sentence under the heading "Useful" explaining that those tags
are optional.  Not strictly needed, but I'm remembering my early days with OSM and
trying to make sense of it without getting lost in a twisty maze of wiki pages, all
different.
Yes, to the sentence at the top.
To me there are 3 things in the pecking order; required to make it work, recommended to add really usefull detail and usefull for adding stuff that matters little.



To do
1) Explanation route=hiking / route=foot is merely a copy paste at the moment. Should be cleaned out and clarified

One distinction I saw (I have no idea where) is that it influences the type of footwear needed.
Walking shoes (at a pinch, even ordinary shoes) are adequate for a walking trail but a
hiking trail needs walking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy
undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow streams.

One hiking trail I know of the locals usually go bare foot, not only because of poverty but also terrain.
So the foot ware would be a guide, not a rule.
Are all foot routes paved?  I would think so.
Hiking route may have sections that are 'paved', mainly to prevent damage to the environment.




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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Warin
In reply to this post by s8evq
It would be usefull to document the method of  including alternate, side trips and access tracks to these routes.

At the moment I and others are using the role 'alternate' for track alternative paths.

For 'side trips' (short paths to features of interest) possibly the role 'side_trip'?

For 'access tracks' (paths from common and signed places that leas to teh main track) possibly the role 'access_track'?


On 13/08/19 18:50, s8evq wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come here, before proceeding.
>
>
> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
>
> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?
>
> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
>
> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
>
>
> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support before going further.
>
>
> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Warin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 00:13, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

One hiking trail I know of the locals usually go bare foot, not only because of poverty but also terrain.
So the foot ware would be a guide, not a rule.
Are all foot routes paved?  I would think so.

Around my town there are several footpaths that are paved.  But they're not walking routes,
just short cuts between locations.  Pretty much indistinguishable from a sidewalk apart from
not being at the side of a road.

Around the outskirts of my town there are also several footpaths which, at least in part, go
across fields.  Again, not walking routes, just short cuts.  They could probably be incorporated
into walking routes but, as far as I know, nobody has done so.

Then there are footpaths which are part of walking routes.  Usually unpaved, cutting across fields
or through woods.  And then there are hiking routes where the surface is uneven, or stony, or
boggy, or you have to ford through a stream.

Hiking route may have sections that are 'paved', mainly to prevent damage to the environment.

True.  Some of the walking and hiking routes I know of have a section, or sections, along a road.
But you choose footwear for the worst conditions you'll encounter on the route, not the best.

Going by the footwear was only a rule of thumb, but it seems like a useful one.  There are going
to be exceptions, but if you need hiking boots, and even fit people need a walking stick to keep
their balance, it's better to call it a hiking route than a walking route.  Similarly, if you could do it
wearing slippers without any discomfort or getting wet feet, it's probably a walking route.  It
seems like useful guidance to mappers rather than not defining any distinction at all.  But
maybe somebody can come up with something better.

--
Paul


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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Warin
Re: > "One hiking trail I know of the locals usually go bare foot, not
only because of poverty but also terrain. So the foot ware would be a
guide, not a rule.

Agreed. That's also true of most paths and footways in rural eastern
Indonesia, many of which are steeper, rockier or muddier and more
exposed to fall risk than some of the "via ferrata" paths in Europe.
(They often even have wooden ladders to aid climbing up steep cliff
sections).

It probably would have been nice if we had one type of tag for all
pedestrian routes including foot/walking/hiking/pilgrimage, but since
both "hiking" and "walking" are widely used, I agree with documenting
them in a similar way and mentioning the other option on both wiki
pages.

On 8/15/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It would be usefull to document the method of  including alternate, side
> trips and access tracks to these routes.
>
> At the moment I and others are using the role 'alternate' for track
> alternative paths.
>
> For 'side trips' (short paths to features of interest) possibly the role
> 'side_trip'?
>
> For 'access tracks' (paths from common and signed places that leas to teh
> main track) possibly the role 'access_track'?
>
>
> On 13/08/19 18:50, s8evq wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
>> I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come
>> here, before proceeding.
>>
>>
>> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or
>> hiking) routes should be tagged.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
>>
>> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link
>> to it in the others?
>>
>> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme
>> tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the
>> explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those
>> interested, here are my edits:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
>>
>> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
>>
>>
>> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and
>> put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader
>> support before going further.
>>
>>
>> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But
>> that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Warin
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On 15/08/19 09:37, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 00:13, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

One hiking trail I know of the locals usually go bare foot, not only because of poverty but also terrain.
So the foot ware would be a guide, not a rule.
Are all foot routes paved?  I would think so.

Around my town there are several footpaths that are paved.  But they're not walking routes,
just short cuts between locations.  Pretty much indistinguishable from a sidewalk apart from
not being at the side of a road.

Around the outskirts of my town there are also several footpaths which, at least in part, go
across fields.  Again, not walking routes, just short cuts.  They could probably be incorporated
into walking routes but, as far as I know, nobody has done so.

Are these 'signed' routes? If not then they fail that test for a 'route'.

Then there are footpaths which are part of walking routes.  Usually unpaved, cutting across fields
or through woods.  And then there are hiking routes where the surface is uneven, or stony, or
boggy, or you have to ford through a stream.

Hiking route may have sections that are 'paved', mainly to prevent damage to the environment.

True.  Some of the walking and hiking routes I know of have a section, or sections, along a road.
But you choose footwear for the worst conditions you'll encounter on the route, not the best.

Going by the footwear was only a rule of thumb, but it seems like a useful one.  There are going
to be exceptions, but if you need hiking boots, and even fit people need a walking stick to keep
their balance, it's better to call it a hiking route than a walking route.  Similarly, if you could do it
wearing slippers without any discomfort or getting wet feet, it's probably a walking route.  It
seems like useful guidance to mappers rather than not defining any distinction at all.  But
maybe somebody can come up with something better.

Yes.. 'something better' is always useful. I do like the footwear as a guide, but not as a rule.

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

Re: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Warin
Where/to what exactly do you apply the role?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 15 aug. 2019 om 01:20 heeft Warin <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
> It would be usefull to document the method of  including alternate, side trips and access tracks to these routes.
>
> At the moment I and others are using the role 'alternate' for track alternative paths.
>
> For 'side trips' (short paths to features of interest) possibly the role 'side_trip'?
>
> For 'access tracks' (paths from common and signed places that leas to teh main track) possibly the role 'access_track'?
>
>
>> On 13/08/19 18:50, s8evq wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come here, before proceeding.
>>
>>
>> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
>>
>> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it in the others?
>>
>> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
>>
>> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
>>
>>
>> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support before going further.
>>
>>
>> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
For determining their outfit, people/renderers/planners better look at the roads and paths in the route, elevation, that kind of thing, within the section they plan to do. Let them draw their own conclusions from that. General classification a priori of the entire route is not helpful to me.

Mvg Peter Elderson

Op 15 aug. 2019 om 01:37 heeft Paul Allen <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 00:13, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

One hiking trail I know of the locals usually go bare foot, not only because of poverty but also terrain.
So the foot ware would be a guide, not a rule.
Are all foot routes paved?  I would think so.

Around my town there are several footpaths that are paved.  But they're not walking routes,
just short cuts between locations.  Pretty much indistinguishable from a sidewalk apart from
not being at the side of a road.

Around the outskirts of my town there are also several footpaths which, at least in part, go
across fields.  Again, not walking routes, just short cuts.  They could probably be incorporated
into walking routes but, as far as I know, nobody has done so.

Then there are footpaths which are part of walking routes.  Usually unpaved, cutting across fields
or through woods.  And then there are hiking routes where the surface is uneven, or stony, or
boggy, or you have to ford through a stream.

Hiking route may have sections that are 'paved', mainly to prevent damage to the environment.

True.  Some of the walking and hiking routes I know of have a section, or sections, along a road.
But you choose footwear for the worst conditions you'll encounter on the route, not the best.

Going by the footwear was only a rule of thumb, but it seems like a useful one.  There are going
to be exceptions, but if you need hiking boots, and even fit people need a walking stick to keep
their balance, it's better to call it a hiking route than a walking route.  Similarly, if you could do it
wearing slippers without any discomfort or getting wet feet, it's probably a walking route.  It
seems like useful guidance to mappers rather than not defining any distinction at all.  But
maybe somebody can come up with something better.

--
Paul

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

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12345