|
Hello, I am new to OSM and anxious to contribute to the available information on hiking in my city (Kansas City). I started with a small path that was not on the map at all and I want to confirm I am following the guidelines. I have poured over https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route, and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_examples along with questions here an other forums. I think I have this correct, but I am surprised that there are so few route=hiking in the US, so I was hoping to validate. My question: is route=hiking, network=lwn appropriate for a short nature trail associate with a county campground? (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11952393) There is no way marking along the path, but the route is very visible through the woods, and the path is represented on the crude maps for the county park. This appears to meet the definition of route "hiking routes are named or numbered or otherwise signed walking routes" and "Local walking network: short walking trails in National/State parks, city parks or gardens that form a cohesive network". I ask because I am new, and because so few hiking paths are tagged this way in the US. |
|
Hello, network=lwn seems appropriate. You should also connect the path in the north to the highway=service of what seems to be a parking. And I would put the name only on the relation, not on the ways. Imagine if you have 5 different routes on the same part of a path. Greetings. 1
On the lack of tagged hiking paths in the US that you mention, bear in mind that a lot of OSM data has been created with the aid of satellite or aerial imagery, and these routes can not be created in this way. (You might be able to trace a path from imagery, but you would have no way of tagging the route name and so on). So this kind of data generally requires somebody with enough enthusiasm to map these routes, and in many areas there may not have been enough mappers interested in this kind of thing. In case you were not already aware, waymarkedtrails.org is much more useful for this than any of the maps on the OSM home page. Here are two examples in the US where networks of short trails have been tagged, perhaps they will help to reassure you. https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!41.1758!-95.9026 https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!39.6276!-74.4244
(28 Nov '20, 16:55)
alan_gr
2
Lack of a route relation doesn't mean the trail hasn't been hiked by a mapper: I will admit the I seldom create route relations for the trails I map. Certainly you don't need a route relation for the trails to show up on a bunch of hiking apps including the ones I use.
(28 Nov '20, 19:27)
n76
Thanks for the guidance and reassurance. I will incorporate the suggestions, and study the provided relations for other ideas. I had looked at waymarkedtrails, but without routes tagged in my area, it didn't seem very useful to me. Hopefully I can make a difference in my region by tagging routes.
(29 Nov '20, 00:40)
TroyH
|
The links in your original message appear to have appended the trailing character comma or Paren, to the end of the URL making them fail. Corrected links are below.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11952393
This method of tagging trails, while not all that recent, by far would not include any legacy networks added. Many routes you are looking at may have been last edited prior to the hiking designation in Sep 2008. With the route network coming into play mid 2012. You can check age by looking at the history of the way you are looking at, and very few people would worry about updating to the current iteration if the old styling meets their needs.