|
Hi, This question is about those forest trails that exist primarily beause a lot of people have used them (unpaved), or may be gravel paved but narrow and not suitable for normal bicycle use. Are they highway=path, bicycle=no - or highway=footpath - or are both eually fine? The picture in the UI of the new simple tag system in Potlatch implies that footpaths are constructed paths... What about mountain bikes? Many such trails are rideable by mountain-bike, but it may not be allowed (which means that you could ride that trail on a normal bike - if you'd be willing to do that to your bicycle) But other trails would not be rideable by a normal bicycle under any circumstances, only an mbt would do. What I am after it some thing like this
Regards, Hans Olav |
|
You should tag them with highway=path and use mtb:scale for bicycle classification. Further tags like sac_scale, surface or trail_visibility might be useful, too. Using these tags allows a better classification than the rather simple highway=trail. |
|
The If you have a general right to cycle along that path, it should be tagged as Then use extra tags (eg |
|
This kind of path is often called a "footpad" - a trail that exists only through the action of feet on soil. There isn't a good, official way to describe it in OSM. highway=trail sounds ok, but it has very little usage. I did just discover "highway=path, path=hiking". Maybe that's suitable? 1
FYI, planners call these trails 'desire lines' or 'desire trails'. They sometimes reroute official trails to follow them. I agree there is no clear way to designate them in potlatch, and indicating their accessibility to bikes is difficult for some of us to assess.
(16 Jul '11, 17:19)
gpsdork
|
