|
I have stumbled (almost literally) over a situation when a footpath is practically unwalkable. A very narrow passage, kind of a step on the wall facing the sea. Here is the link and here is the aerial image. The width in the narrowest place is about 50 cm, and it's like one or two metre above the sea level. One can pass, and it is definitely worthy mapping. However I was with a baby push-chair, so it was out of question. I was disappointed to find no way out and being forced to turn back. So I am wondering: what's the best way to tag it? So far I've added the width tag to it and tagged it as unsuitable for bicycles and wheelchairs. But probably it will in no way reflect its display in e.g. OsmAnd. Is there maybe a better tag? |
|
You should add width, wheelchair (which you did), smoothness, incline and if appropriate sac_scale tags. The combination should make users and routers aware of how walkable the footpath is. Thanks for path vs. footway suggestion. However https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale explicitly suggests not to use sac_scale for paths not intended for hiking or climbing. What would you say?
(20 Apr '16, 18:03)
Kotya
As I said: and if appropriate sac_scale tags
(20 Apr '16, 18:51)
malenki
|
Please note that bicycle=no is for the legal status of the path, not for whether you think it is unsuitable for bikes.
@Andy-Allan, I always use bicycle=no for the cases when I want the navigation software not to use a specific path for routing. What is a better way?
@Andy-Allan, I just re-read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions and you seem to be very right. It says "ensure this is indicated". But I am still confused, as path allows bicycles by default in Spain, so the routing software will probably use it.