|
There is no feature type for Motorized Single Track Trails (Trails that legally allow for foot, horse, and electric and gas powered cycle traffic, but not 4-wheel vehicles). What feature type should be used? |
|
Same: 1
We don't need a new highway type for every corner case. Yes, typically a path is for non-motorized traffic. However, this is just the default. It is perfectly fine to specify via additional access tags that this path can be used by motorcycles. This should be honored by all routers.
(23 Aug '22, 07:50)
scai ♦
It's an official designation by the US's largest land management agency, hardly a corner case.
(23 Aug '22, 20:49)
S_C_B_B
That's not as crucial either. Is There is
(24 Aug '22, 04:26)
Kovoschiz
|
|
Thank you for your response. That was my original inclination, but to me, that seems to be a poor fit. The path description specifically states "A generic or multi-use path open to non-motorized traffic." Non-motorized. There is a clause to counter that in the documentation, but without digging deeper, there could be a lot of confusion amongst casual users or systems that feed off OSM without full consideration of the access values. I should also mention that the trails I'm specifically concerned with are on US National Forest Land, and the USFS recently declared that all electric bikes are motorized, as common sense would dictate, but OSM access values dictate otherwise. I'm inclined to believe there should be a new feature type for these instances. Feel free to convince me otherwise. 3
Is there an overlap with a question being discussed on the "new" forum about "how to tag access to motorized vehicles on what are purported to be non-motorized paths"? That is also in a US context although I think it may refer more to urban situations: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-for-us-ebikes-of-750-watts-and-above/2212 I think you have shortened the path description above, or maybe taken it from a different place to the one I am looking at. The first sentence on the wiki page for highway=path says "a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles and not intended for motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately". That seems to make clear that motorized use is a possibility, just not the default. Also mofa=yes is given as one of the specific examples. If a new highway= value is created, paths tagged in this way probably won't be rendered at all initially in most maps/apps, so it will disappear for pedestrians/cyclists. So it may be difficult to persuade mappers to use it. I'm not saying it is a wrong approach, but the practical issues around transitioning to a new value for a main key are important.
(24 Aug '22, 08:13)
alan_gr
1
This is true, but it's a failing in those systems, and there is work underway to address that in the US.
(24 Aug '22, 10:41)
Richard ♦
|