|
trails are shown, but to Nordic ski tracks. these ski tracks are used all year long, in winter for Nordic skiing, in summer for cycling, running hiking. I am talking about Lysløype(lit trails/paths/tracks intended for these activities) ( flood lit trail) but htey show up on http://www.xctrails.org/map/map.html?trail=900003137&type=xc just and example but no matter how I tag them they won't showup on the map, and these trails are still important to have on the map. https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysl%C3%B8ype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floodlit_trail I see they are shown on https://waymarkedtrails.org/ |
|
The "standard" rendering style used at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ cannot show everything. Trying to do so would make it even more of a cluttered mess. So choices are made and nordic ski trails haven't made the cut. There are specialty renderers, some of which you've found, that do render those trails. 2
Other OSM-based maps which support rendering of ski slopes are https://openskimap.org/ and https://www.opensnowmap.org/.
(01 Apr '20, 08:32)
scai ♦
I guess I would have to map them as trails, cus these are multi use, apart from horse, those are not allowed. these are gravel or dirt trails, so they are a permanent trail, unlike the ski routes on the golf course, which is high priority route which is groomed, but no actual trail. so how should I map these to differentiate them from permanent paths. should I just use seasonal=winter ? there is one of those that just goes through a grass field in a kind of park area which is only groomed for winter. so for those routes that are not permanent I understand that they should be hidden, but the others should I make them into a trail instead? this way all what needs to be shown on same map will be shown. these trails are for cyclists, runners too. I have seen it mapped like trails before, so I think I should do that too, but keep those ski tracks that are only ski tracks and are not permanent as ski tracks.
(01 Apr '20, 13:27)
mtbboy1993
thx, I see https://www.opensnowmap.org/ is not working, I just get missing picture icons and pink background.
(01 Apr '20, 13:39)
mtbboy1993
some paths are also Cycle & Foot Paths but in winter they are also groomed ski track and are multi use. apart from horse.
(01 Apr '20, 13:44)
mtbboy1993
|
|
@jimkim: You shouldn't have to duplicate the trails: The tagging for ski trails and for hiking trails use non-conflicting tags so you can tag a single way as both a hiking trail and a nordic trail. 3
Indeed, duplicating the trails makes them complicated to edit. Instead, you can perfectly tag a trail with a highway=track, path or footways AND a piste:type=nordic. If there is a track to be found in summer, of course.
(09 May '20, 08:32)
yvecai
should I mark them as trails and add the ski tags? like this: cycleway=yes footway=yes highway=path horse=no lit=yes name=Lysløype oneway=no piste:difficulty=easy piste:grooming=classic+skating ski=designated surface=gravel
(10 May '20, 06:25)
mtbboy1993
1
If the name of the winter nordic piste is the same as the name of the summer path that would work. Otherwise you can use piste:name=Lysløype In my area the summer hiking trails and/or tracks usually have different names or even no name at all so I usually use piste:name. Likewise some trails are two way in summer for hiking or cycling but oneway when used as a ski trail, so piste:oneway=yes might be appropriate. And there really isn't a need for ski=designated for something tagged as a piste.
(10 May '20, 06:45)
n76
ski=designated was cus that specific path apparently is not allowing for others to use it in winter, but atleast that's what I found on the web, but actually now signs saying so there, so I think I should remove that tag.
(10 May '20, 06:51)
mtbboy1993
I used Lysløype to indicate it's a lit path, those are multipurpose trails that are lit, there is a own word for it in Norway, Lysløype, these can be singletracks, gravel paths, dirt paths, some are dual tracks. of course No horses allowed. usually people call them all Lysløype unless it's has a specific name then usually it has name and løype added to it, or løypa, that might vary from area to area. doing this makes it easy to see which are lit tracks and which are not. But I read that we should add name to everything. but it makes sense for these tracks. as Lysløype is a different type of path, as they they are lit. but I added Lit tag, so maybe this is enough, but with Lysløype in the name you know what type of trail,path,track it is. and know it is a path that is groomed.
(10 May '20, 07:00)
mtbboy1993
We should not add name to everything, where fid you read this? name=Lysløype is not needed, unless locals refers specifically to this trail by that name or there is a local OSM community consensus for doing so.
(10 May '20, 07:50)
yvecai
showing 5 of 6
show 1 more comments
|
|
I’m going to look at the tagging to see if that helps |
|
I'm having the same issue and because the Nordic Trails seem to be specific to openskimap that perhaps duplicating the nordic trails and labelling the second set as regular trails might do the trick. The nordic trails will appear where they should and the other version of the trails where they should. I don't think adding duplicate is a good idea, that will make a mess.
(10 May '20, 06:21)
mtbboy1993
|